[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: the benefits of immutability
From: "Joe Marshall" <jrm@ccs.neu.edu>
To: <vkarvone@mappi.helsinki.fi>
Cc: "Vadim Nasardinov" <el-vadimo@comcast.net>, "Perry E. Metzger"
<perry@piermont.com>, <ll1-discuss@ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: the benefits of immutability
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 13:19:02 -0400
Hmmm, a few points off:
1. When I said `the square root function and the ToString function'
I intended that those be the `standard' Math.sqrt and Object.toString
operators. Although your `toString' and `sqrt' functions do perform
the appropriate operations, they are essentially arbitrary objects
with
the appropriate name, not the functions I asked for.
What, you don't like (inverse) eta conversion?
2. The returned object isn't the same kind of thing as Object.ToString,
or Math.sqrt.
3. Consider these lines:
return new Double(Math.sqrt(((Double)a).doubleValue()));}},
return ((Fn)((Object[])a)[1]).ap(((Fn)((Object[])a)[1]).ap(b));
System.out.println( ((Fn)(compose.ap(new
Object[]{sqrt,toString}))).ap(new Double(10)) );
Too many parenthesis.
Let me get this straight: a Lisp programmer complaining
about too many parentheses???
--Guy Steele