On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:52 pm, Gregory Ewing wrote:

> Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> "the implementation is free to use in-place mutations of the state object
>> – ... without letting anyone know that the implementation has given up
>> any functional purity."
> If it's impossible to tell that functional purity has
> been given up, then in what sense has it been given up
> at all?

Did I say it was impossible to tell?

Just because Donald Trump doesn't admit to wearing a hairpiece doesn't mean
that nobody can tell that he does. *wink*

The way you can usually tell your functional language has given up purity in
favour of mutating implementations is that your code actually runs with
non-toy amounts of data :-)

“Cheer up,” they said, “things could be worse.” So I cheered up, and sure
enough, things got worse.


Reply via email to