On 12/20/16 8:54 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 08:16:36PM -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
On 12/20/16 8:02 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
Isn't that impure by definition?! How can tracing execution even be
remotely considered pure?
That's why the compiler is required compulsively to call it. -- Andrei
I don't follow.
The question was how can a function with side-effects (even given D's
relaxed definition of pure, i.e., allowing mutation via arguments) can
be considered pure. What has that got to do with the compiler being
required to call it?
I'd say a pure void function should be equivalent to no-op and elidable.
If it's elidable, it's as good as a bug in the program. Must be either a
compile-time error or a special case. -- Andrei
