On Sunday, August 14, 2011 22:25:36 Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 08/14/2011 10:00 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Aug 2011 22:48:18 +0300, Timon Gehr <timon.g...@gmx.ch> wrote:
> >> requiring lazy before lazy arguments basically destroys the reason for
> >> lazy being in the language:
> >>
> >> int foo(lazy 2*3);
> >>
> >> is not better than
> >>
> >> int foo({return 2*3});
> >
> > What about requiring "lazy" only for non-pure delegates?
>
> Actually I would rather require lazy arguments to be pure, so that they
> can be guaranteed to be executed at most once.
That still wouldn't be guaranteed, since pure function calls are only
optimized out if they're strongly pure and in the same expression. You can't
rely on calls to pure functions being optimized.
- Jonathan M Davis
