On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 03:04:16PM +0000, Nicholas Clark wrote: > On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 08:22:17PM +1100, Damian Conway wrote: > > The name of the property is still under debate. Larry favours: > > > > sub square ( Num $n ) is same {...} > > > > whereas others feel that: > > > > sub square ( Num $n ) is memoized {...} > > > > is more appropriate. > > We're looking for a word that tersely expresses >has_no_side_effects_and_can_safely_have_its_results_cached_based_on_parameter_types_and_values_and_calling_context > ?
The functional programmers will tell you that word would be "pure". Might confuse C++ types, but I think fortran uses it in this context. > And to people in the perl5 know, Memoize is the module that implements this, > hence why people who know of how and what Memoize can do favour that name. > Except that it's not necessarily obvious to everyone else? I have to admit that I find "memoize" to be a horrible word. The first time I saw it I thought there was an "r" missing. > cacheable is rather long and sufficiently made up that my copy of ispell > doesn't recognise it. But at least all English speakers can agree how to > spell words that don't end in i[zs]e (or end ou?r or [cs]e :-) Quite. -- Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pjcj.net