On Thu, 15 May 2014 10:48:07 +0000 Don via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> Yes. 'strong pure' means pure in the way that the functional > language crowd means 'pure'. > 'weak pure' just means doesn't use globals. > > But note that "strong purity" isn't an official concept, it was > just the terminology I used when explain to Walter what I meant. > I don't like the term because it's rather misleading > -- in reality you could define a whole range of purity strengths > (more than just two). > The stronger the purity, the more optimizations you can apply. Yeah, I agree. The problem is that it always seems necessary to use the terms weak pure to describe the distinction - or maybe I just suck at coming up with a better way to describe it than you did initially. Your recent post in this thread talking about @noglobal seems to be a pretty good alternate way to explain it though. Certainly, the term pure throws everyone off at first. - Jonathan M Davis