[m-rev.] Xlib interface for extras

[Ian MacLarty]

On 24 Sep 2004, at 14:59, Ralph Becket wrote:

> Ian MacLarty, Friday, 24 September 2004:
>>
>> Well looks like I'm out-voted, but I still think impurity is being
>> abused here.  At least for the det impure procs in xlib.m.  For 
>> example
>> I see no reason why xlib.flush should be impure.  It seems silly to
>> hide the IO state in xlib.flush, but then introduce it again in
>> easyx.flush.  It's confusing and inconsistent, especially for a newbie
>> like me who's reading the code.  It doesn't matter that I'm not going
>> to use xlib directly - I might still be interested in how it was
>> implemented.
>
> What you are suggesting is that xlib.m should present a pure interface,
> but to do so would require more complicated C code.
>
> Instead I have chosen to handle the complexity at the Mercury level in
> easyx.m.
>
> I understand what you're saying, and arguments can be made either way,
> but I would say that that in this case an impure xlib.m/pure easy.m
> design is the simpler one.

Okay.  I see your point.

Ian.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-reviews mailing list
post:  mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
administrative address: owner-mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
unsubscribe: Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: unsubscribe
subscribe:   Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: subscribe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------