On 08/14/2011 10:36 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
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
My point was, that if lazy arguments were required to be pure, such a
thing _could_ then be guaranteed independently from optimizations that
may or may not take place on general pure functions.
