On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 01:53:11AM -0600, Luke Palmer wrote: > Juerd writes: > > Autrijus Tang skribis 2005-04-27 17:04 (+0800): > > > I can certainly see a `is pure` trait on Perl 6 function that declares > > > them to be safe from side effects. In a sense, `is const` also does that. > > > > `is pure` would be great to have! For possible auto-memoization of > > likely-to-be-slow subs it can be useful, but it also makes great > > documentation. > > It's going in there whether Larry likes it or not[1]. There are so > incredibly many optimizations that you can do on pure functions, it's > not even funny. Haha. Er...
For those too young to have had net access at the time, I'll note that we have had a discussion along these lines before. At that time most people disliked the word "pure", but since then it would seem that for some strange reason more people have been exposed to functional programming. http://www.mail-archive.com/perl6-language@perl.org/msg11967.html -- Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pjcj.net
