[erlang-questions] Illegal Guard?
Thu Feb 11 17:30:48 CET 2016
On 02/10/2016 11:01 PM, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
> I believe I mentioned that purity is not sufficient.
> f(X) -> f(X).
> is pure. But it is not bounded, and boundedness is of practical
I understand. I was merely replying to the last point about retaining
purity after hot loading.
> We *could* have declarations like that. Currently we don't.
> There are some technical problems which could probably be resolved.
> One of them is "what does it mean to call a function pure if it is being
> Actually, the simplest thing would be to adopt abstract patterns, which
> are *necessarily* pure and bounded, so there is nothing extra to
> There have been programming languages with 'effects' as part of their
> type system. To a degree, Mercury and Clean do that now. Erlang has a
> type system now, which it didn't before. Maybe in another decade it will
> have a type+effects system.
Interesting... I'll go do some more reading. Thank you.
More information about the erlang-questions