From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: weis Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id PAA13221 for caml-redistribution; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 15:15:23 +0100 (MET) Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA19651 for ; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 14:57:52 +0100 (MET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA13690; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 14:57:48 +0100 (MET) Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id OAA32023; Fri, 11 Dec 1998 14:57:48 +0100 (MET) From: Pierre Weis Message-Id: <199812111357.OAA32023@pauillac.inria.fr> Subject: Re: Functional composition operator? To: John.Harrison@cl.cam.ac.uk (John Harrison) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1998 14:57:48 +0100 (MET) Cc: caml-list@inria.fr In-Reply-To: from "John Harrison" at Dec 9, 98 05:17:22 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: weis [...] > I wasn't necessarily proposing such a ragbag. But as Don Syme has pointed > out, there are many perfectly natural and disciplined ways of using side > effects within globally functional code. I think we agree on the whole thing in fact: the problem is to get the most readable and clearest program we can write. > [...] I'm happy for > people to avoid composition if that's what they want. However I don't like > the idea of discouraging new programmers from using it even when it > could be very helpful and natural. You're absolutely right. The more natural the better. Pierre Weis INRIA, Projet Cristal, Pierre.Weis@inria.fr, http://cristal.inria.fr/~weis/