Side-effect free containers for E
Wed, 9 Aug 2000 21:09:28 -0400
> I see four somewhat separable issues in Tyler's proposal:
> 1) Should we remove mutable containers from the normal user
> 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
> 2) If we accept #1, what should the specifics of our
> 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
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.