Re: Doc writing for unpure-pure-containers

[Peekay Ex]

Hello,

On 14 November 2011 14:38, address@hidden <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2011, at 3:33 PM, Ian Hulin wrote:
>
>> Hi Mike,
>> On 14/11/11 10:18, address@hidden wrote:
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> I've answered a couple questions recently where
>>> unpure-pure-containers have come in handy and think it'd be
>>> beneficial to have some text in the notation manual about them.
>>> However, understanding pure properties is scary for developers, so
>>> I'd imagine that it'd be downright nightmarish for users.  James -
>>> would you be interested in helping me out with this? I think that
>>> you're good at formulating things in a way that people understand.
>>>
>>> Cheers, MS
>> Why are you using unpure rather than impure in the name? It make my
>> internal spelling checker's alarm bells ring.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ian
>>
>
> I think because I wanted to express the notion of not-pure in a sort of 
> binary way (in my new jerseyan English, I have a tendency to use "un" for all 
> negation, so something's never bad, it's just ungood).  "impure" to me sounds 
> like a term from the spanish inquisition or a novel by dostoyevsky.  but i 
> can change it...
>

Did anyone consider pure vs  non-pure

--
James