On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Matt Rice <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> 1. Is this worth it? It seems to be driven by the desire to mix imperative >> and pure programming without an explosion of type definition variations (due >> to case analysis getting embedded at the type level). > > It seems to me that one property lost due to the mix of imperative and > pure when data structures > are built this way is the notion of persistence, although I guess > maybe its quasi persistent or immutably persistent or something.
I think there is something here which I failed to, when you *do* keep/utilize the limited form of persistence available to this we seem to now be venturing into the land of runtime errors, I think it was a combination of this/that and personal lazyness which may have kept me from investigating further _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
