http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8185
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> 2012-06-03 16:02:19 PDT --- They aren't _my_ definitions. They're official. They've been discussed in the newsgroup. They've even been used by folks like Walter Bright in talks at conferences. How purity is implemented in D has been discussed and was decided a while ago. It works well and is not going to change. Weak purity solved a real need. All we had before was strong purity, and it was almost useless, because it was so limited. It is _far_ more useful now that it was before. A pure function is clearly defined as a function which cannot access global or static state which is mutable. It doesn't matter how other languages use the term pure. That's how D uses it. And in cases where a function is strongly pure, you _do_ get the optimizations based on passing the same arguments to the same pure function multiple times that you'd expect from a more functional language. If you don't like how D's pure works, that's fine - you're free to have your own opinion, be it dissenting or otherwise - but how pure works in D is _not_ going to change. If bugs are found in the compiler's implementation of it, they will be addressed, but at this point, the design is what it is. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
