On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 6:29 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 7, 2015, Geoffrey Irving <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> So, for the sake of purity and good design, you're advocating for >> global mutable state? >> >> Geoffrey > > The question "are we inadvertently predicating decisions on the assumption > of purity?" is valid. If he is doing that, Keann seems within bounds given > that BitC is statefull. This doesn't absolve the question, because pure > idioms remain useful in the context of proof discharge. We shouldn't abhore > statefull idioms, but we should do our best to account for them, where > possible, as optimizations on pure idioms. > > That said, the discussion is not enhanced by ad hominem framing, I have made > this mistake myself, but let's try to avoid personalizing the discussion.
Thank you for the correction. It came out more rudely than I intended, and I apologize for the tone. I should emphasize, Keean, that this discussion has been very interesting, and I'm glad we get to analyze it in such detail. Back to technical: I wasn't implying that all mutable state is bad, just that forcing mutable state in this case seems like a bad language choice. If two different threads want to sort things with different salts, we'd be out of luck. Geoffrey _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
