[Fwd: F#]
Pixel
pixel@mandrakesoft.com
31 May 2002 23:50:16 +0200
"Don Syme" <dsyme@microsoft.com> 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)