On 29/05/12 19:35, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 May 2012 at 12:08:08 UTC, Don Clugston wrote:
And to set the record straight -- the relaxed purity ideas were not my
idea.
I forget who first said them, but it wasn't me. I just championed them.
Unfortunately, I don't quite remember either – was it Bruno Medeiros? In
any case, if somebody can help my memory here, I'd be glad to give
credit to the one who came up with the original proposal in the article
as well.
David
The successful proposal, using "weakly pure/strongly pure" (Sep 21 2010):
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Proposal_Relax_rules_for_pure_117735.html
It"s basically the same as this one by Bruno (Apr 29 2008), which uses
"partially pure" and mentions an earlier post by me:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Idea_partially_pure_functions_70762.html#N70762
And the earliest reference I could find is by me (Apr 5 2008) where I
called it an "amoral" function.
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Grafting_Functional_Support_on_Top_of_an_Imperative_Language_69253.html
The first compiler release with pure function attributes (though not
implemented) was released in Apr 22, 2008 and the first with pure as a
keyword was Jan 20 2008.
So surely this is close to the original.
So now I'm confused, maybe it *was* me after all!????
Then formalized by Bruno, and later championed by me?
