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. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_data_structure I agree. The ability to *express* persistent data structures is desirable, but data structure persistence shouldn't be required. The main application of what might be termed "partially invariant" data structures is specifying what happens in the presence of concurrency. Jonathan
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
