On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote:
> It promotes errors. By failing to require the programmer to state their > intent, it becomes possible to unintentionally modify something without > getting caught by a diagnostic. I've thought it would be nice if the mutability inference could output a mutation specification, which can then be the input for subsequent compilations to check against, though I'm still a bit fuzzy on the details of how to work with a mixture of annotated and inferred code, at least in the language I was thinking about this in, the lack of annotations can either mean immutable (that is immutable by default), or whatever is inferred... Not particularly happy with that situation to be honest _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
