On 4/24/15 1:57 PM, deadalnix wrote:
On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 17:45:57 UTC, anonymous wrote:
On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 17:07:20 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 15:43:17 UTC, anonymous wrote:
[...]
Could core.stdc.stdlib.malloc and friends also be marked pure then?
No.
Allocating on the GC is "stateless" as the GC will handle the state
by itself, from the program perspective, there is no state to maintain.
malloc require free, and the state management is pushed on the
application rather than the runtime. It is not pure.
There's also GC.free, which is also marked pure.
I can't see how GC.malloc followed by GC.free is more pure than stdlib
malloc followed by stdlib free.
GC.free should probably not be pure, but that is also not at all what
you talk about in previous posts, which led me to think you are
essentially doing a stunt as to not admit you were wrong.
I think you are thinking of @safe-ty. malloc and free can be pure, but
must be contained properly.
purity when it comes to mutable data is a tricky thing.
-Steve
