On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 21:08 +0100, David Hopwood wrote: > Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > > 3. Introduce a new variation on function types: > > > > (di-fn T.arg T.result) > > > > that describes deeply immutable procedures. > > A terminology suggestion: use "function" only for deeply immutable > procedures, and "procedure" otherwise. > > Although this is slightly different from the usage in most other > programming languages (where a "procedure" is often a function with > no return value), it is absolutely consistent with mathematics, > and is likely to make sense to the target audience of BitC. > "fn" and "proc" are definitely better keywords than "di-fn".
I grew up in those other languages, so I will personally find this confusing, but I like the discussion and it seems like a good idea. Having agreed, let's continue using DI-FN in the current discussion just so we are all using the same lexicon. It will avoid confusion. Thanks! shap _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
