* Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Returning to the original point, I've come to the conclusion that "pure" isn't the right way to go. The trouble with "leakproof" is that it doesn't point to what it is that's not leaking, which is information rather than memory, as many might imagine (and I did) without further hints. I'm not sure any single English word would be as descriptive as I'd like.
Jumping into the bikeshedding here, I'm not convinced that all that many users would immediately jump to the wrong conclusion (that being "free of memory leaks"). Rather the opposite, indeed.
IMHO, you may be looking at this through "C developer colored glasses", where any "leak" must immediately and without doubt be a resource leak of some kind. As Don Baccus pointed out, it would be a highly unusual function that was not at least intended to be free of memory leaks.
A DBA, on the other hand, might -- and, again, this is MHO only -- not decide what the attribute must mean without consulting the documentation. If she was especially concerned about information security/data protection, she might even guess right about what kind of "leak" is meant. There is no chance of that with terms like SILENT or PURE.
Of all the suggestions I have seen in this thread, I think LEAKPROOF is actually the best fit for the purpose. My favorite alternative, just to suggest one, would be NONDISCLOSING/NOT DISCLOSING, but I prefer LEAKPROOF even over that, not just because it's shorter.
-- Christian Ullrich -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
