Side-effect free containers for E

[Tyler Close]

Markm wrote:
> I see four somewhat separable issues in Tyler's proposal:
>
> 1) Should we remove mutable containers from the normal user
> container
> library?  (Whether they should continue to exist for
> specialized purposes
> would be a fifth issue, but I don't believe anyone is
> proposing that they be
> banished altogether.)

If you succeed at #4, then I don't see where the flex containers would
be useful. If you keep them around anyways, you will have trouble
accomplishing #1.

> 2) If we accept #1, what should the specifics of our
> side-effect-free
> container library be?  In particular, what current library
> should they
> derive from?  The two on the table are Hydro and the
> side-effect-free subset
> of the current E collections library.
>
> 3) What kind of syntactic support should E provide for
> these containers?
> For example, what operator (eg, "+") should map to what
> container-manipulation meaning (eg, "concatenation of sequences").

If "+" means "concatenation of sequences", then what does "-" mean? I
think the concatenation operator is "|".

> So, in this spirit, I'd like to propose that we attempt
> answering #1 by
> imagining the side-effect-free subset of E's current
> collections, for now,
> as our hypothetical answer to #2.  Many of us are much more
> familiar with
> this library than with Hydro.  In doing this, let's
> remember the ground
> rules: a) If this answer to #2 isn't good enough, that
> doesn't disqualify
> #1 -- we should reexamine using Hydro.  b) Even if it is
> good enough, and we
> agree with #1, we still proceed to analyze Hydro as an improvement.
>
> Tyler, since you're the only one currently familiar with
> both, do you see
> any problem with this approach?

Seems fine, though I would rather not be the only one familiar with
both.

Tyler


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com