Exception transparency

[Paulo Levi]

Don't we? I certainly want to.

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Nathan Bryant
<nathan.bryant at linkshare.com>wrote:

>  A simple example:
>
>
>
> public @pure int sum(int a, int b) {
>
> log.debug(“sum!”);
>
> return a + b;
>
> }
>
>
>
> log.debug can never be strictly pure, but surely we don’t want to disallow
> it!
>
>
>
> *From:* Paulo Levi [mailto:i30817 at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 08, 2010 11:44 AM
> *To:* Nathan Bryant
> *Cc:* Brian Goetz; Reinier Zwitserloot; lambda-dev at openjdk.java.net
> *Subject:* Re: Exception transparency
>
>
>
> Why is it not workable? Do programmers have trouble understanding that they
> can't use private methods outside of their class to give a foolish example?
> Why would they have problems understanding that they can only use "pure"
> methods in the body of a pure function -recursive obvs? (aside, here you can
> see why constructors, and SAM types are still useful, mark a method as pure,
> but leave the constructor to deal with the impurity).
>
> Seems like the most elegant solution, and frankly almost a requirement for
> that the new parallel api's if they are to maintain a little sanity. The
> alternative is to retrofit it later if the concept becomes available, that
> will break code, and thus be used as a excuse to do nothing, as usual.
>