On Apr 5, 2009, at 9:34 PM, john skaller wrote: > At this point some choices need to be made about lvalue stuff. In > principle > the idea is: > > a) a var is actually a pointer > b) mutation including assignment requires a pointer > c) offset can be added to pointers to support mutation of sub > components > > The question is what 'x' means given > > var x = 1;
To play the devils advocate, do we even need lvalues? I can live without pre and post incrementing. We never got to finish up our conversation about this on #felix, so I don't completely understand the argument against ocaml's everything is a value but a value can point to a variable. I think it depends on how functional we want felix to be. The current approach tries to make values and variables nearly indistinguishable. We can write: fun foo (x:int) => x; val x = 1; println$ foo x; val y = 2; println$ foo y; But I wouldn't think it'd make much of a difference for me if we had to write: fun foo (x:int) => x; val x = 1; println$ foo x; val y = ref 2; println$ foo *y; if it'd make our semantics clearer. It'd also make sense if we ever actually made functions are purely functional, rather than just assumed they were. I think it makes sense to support mutation, but I don't think it needs to be transparently supported. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Felix-language mailing list Felix-language@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/felix-language
