[m-dev.] Fw: Re: Impurity annotations on clauses

[Ralph Becket]

It's time to revive this debate!

----- Forwarded message from Maria Garcia de la Banda <Maria.GarciadelaBanda at infotech.monash.edu.au> -----

Hi Ralph,

Going through my old e-mail I found this from you: 

> I'm just debugging a change to the compiler to support putting impurity
> annotations on clause heads as an alternative to placing them on all
> impure goals in the clause bodies.  There's some resistance to the idea
> at the Melbourne end (i.e. we're going to have a syntax fight over
> this...) and it would be helpful if you could send me any copies of your
> Mercury modules that are currently festooned with impurity annotations
> so I can use them as ammo in the forthcoming debate.

which I find extremely relevant. Considering how many people are nowdays
implementing impure things, it might be easier to convince them now (I bet most
of the solvers code is festoned with impure keywords). What do you think?

Maria


----- End forwarded message -----
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-developers mailing list
Post messages to:       mercury-developers at csse.unimelb.edu.au
Administrative Queries: owner-mercury-developers at csse.unimelb.edu.au
Subscriptions:          mercury-developers-request at csse.unimelb.edu.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------------