[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)