Robert Jacques napisał:
> >> 3. (vaguely related) Should there be means to express annotated
> >> delegates in general (e.g. pure, nothrow).
> >
> > There is.
> > int delegate(int) pure square
> > = cast( int delegate(int z) pure )
> > (int z) { return z*z; };
> >
On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:18:39 -0500, Don wrote:
Tomek Sowin'ski wrote:
A while ago I pointed out that the result of an immutably pure function
(all arguments immutable, doesn't mutate globals) can be safely
converted to immutable. More here:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=508
Tomek Sowin'ski wrote:
A while ago I pointed out that the result of an immutably pure function (all
arguments immutable, doesn't mutate globals) can be safely converted to
immutable. More here:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5081
It helps with building complex immutable structur
gt; if EVERY variable in the enclosing stack frame is immutable?
Good point. I think the concept of immutable nested functions is still a solid
improvement, even with requiring every variable of the enclosing stack frame to
be immutable.
> Is there any reason you couldn't just use static n
"Tomek Sowinski" wrote in message
news:20110104222343.4...@unknown...
> Nested functions to be immutably pure must also guarantee that nothing
> gets mutated through its stack frame pointer. But there's a problem -- the
> compiler won't accept 'immutable' on a nested function. I think it
>
Tomek Sowiński napisał:
> [snip]
Two days, no answer. I was told that silence means agreement on this NG but
this is extreme ;-)
Seriously, what did I do wrong? Too long/boring post?
--
Tomek
A while ago I pointed out that the result of an immutably pure function (all
arguments immutable, doesn't mutate globals) can be safely converted to
immutable. More here:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5081
It helps with building complex immutable structures. Problem is, virtually
