Re: other annotations
"Michael P." <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.erlang.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20210129190338.040e11d1@aesop> |
:-) On Thu, 28 Jan 2021 11:52:11 -0800 Michael Truog <[email protected]> wrote: > I added a description at https://bugs.erlang.org/browse/ERL-373 for > using pure/impure instead of spec for Erlang type specifications (to > provide the concept of a function type). Adding it as something for `-spec` is now both pure and unpure^{*1}, thus must be regarded as unpure, thus equals a hypothetical `-unpure`. Only `-pure` is needed in addition? > dialyzer to evaluate would be helpful. I don't believe it is very > important to make it easy to create your own guard functions, but this > could be a step in that direction. I reckon it would be of high(est?) importance to make sure that the probability of purity of homebrewed guard functions cannot be lower than that of the current ones ... ~M -- Car and cider give me a pleasant mediterranean feeling, whereas cdr makes me shudder.