[chuck-users] "pure"

[Kassen]

Andrew,

And I guess you could expand "fun int" into something like "fun,
> in't?" which probably only sounds right if you've been hanging out
> some drunk Brits.
>

That might be it but I look at "int" functions as being more analytical
types (clearly they are INTelligent) and the "float" ones as more hippy-ish
fellows. I'm not sure what "dur" functions are like, maybe I don't typically
have too many of those for that reason.

Perhaps we also need to have "progressive" functions to offset the static
ones?

At least Function Character Theory confirms that sproking is a bit naughty,
with only the nihilistic (and so not believing in objective and universal
morality) void functions doing it.

At least it's clear that they are all fun so it's all good.

Kas.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cs.princeton.edu/pipermail/chuck-users/attachments/20090511/79173a84/attachment.html>