From oliver at first.in-berlin.de  Tue Mar  6 10:11:43 2012
From: oliver at first.in-berlin.de (oliver)
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:11:43 +0100
Subject: [Rd] Julia
In-Reply-To: <E66794E69CFDE04D9A70842786030B932831A9@PA-MBX04.na.tibco.com>
References: <CAO7JsnRykFo22Jc+pTGsZhg9EvFE=zxE3XpVvSnzc-=mp=AfKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120303011413.GA18995@siouxsie>
	<E66794E69CFDE04D9A70842786030B93282DF1@PA-MBX04.na.tibco.com>
	<20120305170835.GA4134@siouxsie> <4F555343.8020007@fhcrc.org>
	<E66794E69CFDE04D9A70842786030B932831A9@PA-MBX04.na.tibco.com>
Message-ID: <20120306091143.GC1849@siouxsie>

On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 12:35:32AM +0000, William Dunlap wrote:
[...]
> I find R's (& S+'s & S's) copy-on-write-if-not-copying-would-be-discoverable-
> by-the-uer machanism for giving the allusion of pass-by-value a good way
> to structure the contract between the function writer and the function user.
[...]


Can you elaborate more on this,
especially on the ...-...-...-if-not-copying-would-be-discoverable-by-the-uer
stuff?

What do you mean with discoverability of not-copying?

Ciao,
   Oliver



[Rd] Julia
oliver