Walter Bright Wrote: > BCS wrote: > > would you agree that it is not something the programer can predict in > > advance? > > He can, but it is not reasonable to expect him to. But it's still > deterministic.
I've been following this discussion about determinism and I think it addresses the problem from the wrong point of view, that of a specific implementation. My concern is the semantics of the language. As it is defined right now, a conforming implementation is free to use a quantum random number generator to decide whether to re-allocate or not. Is it likely? I don't think so; but the non-determinism is part of the semantics of D arrays.
