On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Christopher Wright <dhase...@gmail.com> wrote: > Bill Baxter wrote: >> >> But the call for a memoization thingy I just don't get. No way that >> should be a compiler feature, just far too many ways to memoize with >> too many different tradeoffs. And a memoizing wrapper function >> basically loses nothing in terms of expressiveness. >> >> --bb > > The ability for you to memoize a pure function and get a pure function as a > result. Your pure functions can't use the memoized version of the pure > function. > > This means you might have to use a lot more memoization wrappers.
Isn't this the same old "logically const" vs "const" argument we went through ages ago? --bb
