[clean-list] Clean in the Real World

Marco Kesseler m.wittebrood@mailbox.kun.nl
Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:29:58 +0100


>On 15-Dec-2003, Marco Kesseler <m.wittebrood@mailbox.kun.nl> wrote:
>> if you just consider the "disaster" type of exception, hurting 
>> referential transparency _seems_ like a minor issue compared to the 
>> good old abort.
>
>Why make this choice?  We don't need to sacrifice referential transparency
>in order to prevent disasters.  Why not have referential transparency
>_and_ catch exceptions?
>
>Given that Clean is designed around the idea of pure functional programming,
>preserving the properties of pure functional programming seems important.
>If you don't care about those properties, then there are plenty of other
>languages which you can use -- for example OCaml.

I do care. I also said:

>IF you take the non-deterministic approach, it is up to the 
>programmer to map _any_ exception to the same result, so that 
>referential transparency is restored at the catch.
>
>But I'd rather not, if it is not needed.


>-- 
>Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
>The University of Melbourne         |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
>WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>clean-list mailing list
>clean-list@cs.kun.nl
>http://www.cs.kun.nl/mailman/listinfo/clean-list