On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:59:55 -0400, pillsy <pillsb...@gmail.com> wrote:
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 13:51:31 -0400, KennyTM~ <kenn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Given that the 'new' expression can be used in 'pure', should it be
that
> GC allocation functions like GC.malloc, GC.qalloc and GC.extend (?) be
> weakly pure also?
Yes. But one of the possible issues here: weak purity is determined by
the type of the parameters. GC.malloc only takes non-reference types,
so
marking it as pure might make the compiler actually think these are
strong-pure.
Would adding a third, dummy, reference-type parameter that takes a
suitable default value allow you to hack
around this?
Cheers,
Pillsy
Given that malloc returns a mutable pointer, I think it would/should be
considered weakly-pure.
