"Don Syme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > One point is that in the absence of extensive purity annotations to imperative > libraries you will need to use monads for operations that shouldn't need them. > Having to add the annotations certainly counts as a complication in comparison > to what many other languages have to do on .NET.
am I wrong to think that would .NET had const'ness a la C++, purity annotations wouldn't be needed? hum, not really. const methods can still modify global state (but not object state)... but at least no need to annotate non-const methods :) off topic: On the subject of const'ness, I've been messing around with it. I've been quite surprised to discover that Java&C# do not have C++'s const (Java has "final" on parameters, but it is dumb) About this: http://merd.net/inoutness.html (beware, half of it is still investigations) _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
