Is the following copacetic by that definition?
(function (eval, s) {
eval(s);
})
If passed the arguments (freeze(eval), 'a = 0') it will modify the
lexical environment, and I think both arguments are copacetic
according to the frozen functions definition,
2009/12/8 <[email protected]>:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:05 PM, David-Sarah Hopwood
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Note that this implies that the lexical environment of each successfully
>> created instance is observationally immutable, not just that it can't
>> be directly changed by that instance. I.e. it also can't be changed
>> indirectly via an operation on an argument ...
>
> D'oww, I missed that one! Yes, thank you.
>
>> The implementation sketch I gave would preclude that use case because
>> if the supplied argument values are not copacetic, the object's read()
>> method would throw. This might have been too conservative -- if those
>> argument checks were omitted then the property above (that the function
>> instance can't change its lexical environment) would still hold.
>
> Yes.
>
>> It would be possible to make the argument and result checks optional
>> depending on the function annotation: say, /*...@pure*/ includes them but
>> /*...@functional*/ doesn't. (The environment checks would be the same,
>> and both /*...@pure*/ and /*...@functional*/ would mark instances as
>> copacetic.)
>
> Yeah I think we're talking about two, possibly both useful classes of
> behavior here.
>
>> What a fun discussion! Thanks for starting it.
>
> Glad to oblige. :)
>
> Ihab
>
> --
> Ihab A.B. Awad, Palo Alto, CA
>
