On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 17:57:12 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 17:45:57 UTC, anonymous wrote:
[...]
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,
Ok, fair enough.
Right now, I'd lean the other way and make stdlib free pure, too.
Both free variants essentially invalidate their void* arguments.
(Weakly) pure functions may tinker with their arguments, so that
could be fine. I'm probably missing something, though. Feel free
to enlighten me.
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.
Huh? I had missed that GC.malloc isn't strongly pure but weakly
pure because the return type. I don't mean to deny that or
distract from it. If it helps: I was wrong. My shame is great.
Please forgive my ignorance.
