David McClain wrote:
> 
> Is it just me? I am quite troubled by the concepts you propose in a new
> language. You chose to use Caml for very good reasons. Why would you do away
> with things like immutable global environments for your users? Procedures
> altering the environment in such a way as to cause a function to behave
> differently on separate invocations seems like it is going against the basic
> tenets of FP. The FP approach makes it so easy to reason about the behavior
> of programs. Partial evaluation allows customization of functions when
> needed. Am I missing something here?

Yes: I am required to interface to an existing object oriented
event driven system. There is an intrinsic requirement to be able
to modify 'state'. In addition, I have to provide a language that
other people (familiar with C/C++) can use.

But the other thing you miss is that even in ocaml, environments
are NOT immutable: there are mutable fields, and thus mutable
data structures like Hashtbl. The fact is, some things are easier
to express in a stateful manner than a functional one.


-- 
John (Max) Skaller, mailto:skaller@maxtal.com.au
10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia voice: 61-2-9660-0850
checkout Vyper http://Vyper.sourceforge.net
download Interscript http://Interscript.sourceforge.net