Re: Comments on draft-v10-03a.

Paul Hoffman writes:
 > >Idempotent
 > 
 > I second the request for a clear definition in the context of this spec.
 > Another good reason for this: idempotent is not in any dictionary
 > (including my Webster's unabridged) that I could find.
 > 
 > 

Can anyone think of a word that means "without significant
side-effects"?  Maybe there's some good word from functional
programming languages. I think that is closer to what is needed than
"idempotent", which always did seem like not quite the right word.

Received on Wednesday, 30 August 1995 10:25:54 UTC