[swift-evolution] [Pitch] Support for pure functions. Part n + 1.

[Adrian Zubarev]

Exactly, there is none. What I was trying to describe is that -> would become the conditional operator that could swallow purity and impurity. However if one would want to be explicit about purity, you’d have to use ~> instead.



-- 
Adrian Zubarev
Sent with Airmail

Am 17. Februar 2017 um 18:59:17, Nicolas Fezans (nicolas.fezans at gmail.com) schrieb:

I do not see the rationale behind marking impure functions explicitly.  
The useful property is to be pure, in case a function is impure or  
it's status is unknown you just have to assume the worse, i.e. that it  
is impure.  

The arrow proposals -> vs. ~> vs. => are not really much shorter than  
the 4 letters of the pure keyword but just confusing and frightening  
for newcomers (BTW __pure exists in GCC if I remember well) whereas  
"pure func" is something that people can easily google in case they  
need to learn the concept. The different arrows are very compact but  
feel a bit like J, which is a language I would not like swift to look  
like.  

For closure I would rather see it as in this example  

[2.0 , 3.0 , 4.0].map(pure {(x: Double)->Double in return x*x})  

just pure preceding the closure and it would preceeds "func" in "pure  
func". (it could be @pure in both case too)  

Nicolas  


On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 6:36 PM, Adrian Zubarev via swift-evolution  
<swift-evolution at swift.org> wrote:  
> That problem could be solved with the combining tilde, however it isn’t  
> easy, because it’s simply not easy to type. If ~> would describe the pure  
> function and -> an impure function then the combination of both would be ≃>.  
>  
> One thing I noticed, you said that the function itself will become pure or  
> impure depending on the other function. Doesn’t this imply that -> is  
> exactly this pure OR impure function. It’s either or but never both right?  
> Otherwise it might lead us to a huge breaking change. A suggestion building  
> on top of the arrow syntax we could have:  
>  
> pure function: ~>  
> impure function: ≈> (That’s a ‘double tilde’)  
> pure or impure function: -> (it is as to top and bottom tilde was merged and  
> smoothed together)  
>  
>  
>  
> --  
> Adrian Zubarev  
> Sent with Airmail  
>  
> Am 17. Februar 2017 um 17:43:21, Matthew Johnson (matthew at anandabits.com)  
> schrieb:  
>  
> Well sure, but then you have just supplied the type annotation. I am  
> describing a specific scenario where an API can accept a function that is  
> pure or a function that is impure and will have the purity of the function  
> passed into it.  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________  
> swift-evolution mailing list  
> swift-evolution at swift.org  
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution  
>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20170217/3c7acd18/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: purity.png
Type: image/png
Size: 25928 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20170217/3c7acd18/attachment.png>