From: John Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> > :contained. Or possibly :irrelevant, since generally
> > speaking most people won't use it and the optimizer
> > will have to infer whether it's safe to not execute
> > the function every time...
>
> It shouldn't necessarily have to.
> If I *tell* it it's safe, that should be the end of the story.
> It don't get much more optimal than that.
I think he's talking about the 90% of the time that no one explicitly
declares it, but the optimizer infers that it is "contained" anyway.
Speaking of which... how about: "immutable"
immutable adj : not subject or susceptible to change or variation in form or
quality or nature; "the view of that time was that all species were
immutable, created by God" [syn: changeless] [ant: mutable] --Source:
WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
