Julia is a quite simple language and I really appreciate that it does not 
have every feature out there in other languages. Const parameters from C++ 
are certainly an interesting thing but in my experience they also slow down 
my (personal) development time as I have to reason about yet another thing. 
One also has to be very concentrated when reading const aware C++ code as 
the human brain can only recognize a certain amount of chunks at a time.

Am Donnerstag, 12. Juni 2014 22:58:47 UTC+2 schrieb [email protected]:
>
> With respect to S. Karpinski's comment, I can understand completely that 
> this kind of inarg/outarg housekeeping stuff that I propose is not a high 
> priority for the developers of Julia at this early point of Julia's 
> development.  So in that case, let me suggest that the language allow these 
> declarations right now purely as source-code documentation (i.e., they have 
> no effect on the compilation/execution), but the Julia documentation can 
> warn users that in future releases they may be enforced by the compiler.
>
> -- Steve Vavasis
>
>
> On Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:28:18 PM UTC+3, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Both C++ and Fortran 90 allow the programmer to annotate 
>> call-by-reference arguments to a function as to whether the function is 
>> allowed to change them (this is denoted  const & in C++).  The compiler 
>> then enforces the const-ness of the argument.  I don't see how to do this 
>> in Julia.  Is it available?  If not, is there a reason why it was not 
>> included?  This is a fairly basic tool for self-documenting code and for 
>> ensuring program correctness.
>>
>> And a related question: the documentation makes a big deal about "stable 
>> types" for function return arguments.  An obvious question is why the 
>> language doesn't allow the programmer to declare in the function heading 
>> what will be the return types of the function, and then have the compiler 
>> enforce this stability.  Is this possible in Julia?  If not, is there a 
>> technical reason for omitting it?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Steve Vavasis
>>
>> P.S. I have a few more questions but I'll pause now to wait for answers 
>> to these questions.  I hope they are easy to answer!
>>
>

Reply via email to