Jeremy Hylton wrote: > BAW> Think about my proposal this way: it actually removes a > BAW> restriction. > > I think this is really the crux of the matter! The proposal removes > a useful restriction. > > The alternatives /F suggested seem clearer to me that sticking new > attributes on functions and methods. Three things I like about the > approach: It affords an opportunity to be very clear about how the > attributes are intended to be used. I suspect it would be easier to > describe with a static type system. Having to be explicit about the method <-> regex / rule would severely damage SPARK's elegance. It would make Tim's doctest useless. > It prevents confusion and errors > that might result from unprincipled use of function attributes. While I'm sure I will be properly shocked and horrified when you come up with an example, in my naivety, I can't imagine what it will look like ;-). - Gordon
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4