A paper I've recently read:
"Verifiable Functional Purity in Java", by Matthew Finifter, Adrian Mettler,
Naveen Sastry and David Wagner:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~finifter/pure-ccs08.pdf
At page 12 it says some things about D2 too (this article is not updated to the
last changes in D2):
In a
bearophile wrote:
class or instance immutability is necessary to ensure determinism in a
concurrent program, as otherwise a mutable alias can be used to
concurrently modify the object.
That's the price of being a systems language - it is possible to subvert
the type system. However, we also h
Simen kjaeraas:
> So it is basically exactly like D, only no mutable global state?
It's similar, of couse. I think there is no 'pure' tag, the compiler infers if
a method is pure on the base of its arguments. In D even a function that is
technically pure is not seen as pure of you don't tag it w
On Sunday 05 September 2010 16:59:19 bearophile wrote:
> Simen kjaeraas:
> > So it is basically exactly like D, only no mutable global state?
>
> It's similar, of couse. I think there is no 'pure' tag, the compiler infers
> if a method is pure on the base of its arguments. In D even a function
> t
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Having the compiler determine purity would be cool, but it runs into a few of
problems.
The most serious one I can think of is:
Suppose you are depending on a function being pure. If the compiler determines
its purity, it *does not tell you* if it is impure. Your code
Walter Bright wrote:
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Having the compiler determine purity would be cool, but it runs into a
few of problems.
The most serious one I can think of is:
Suppose you are depending on a function being pure. If the compiler
determines its purity, it *does not tell you* i
Walter Bright:
> The most serious one I can think of is:
Just to be sure: in my original post of this thread I have not asked to change
D. I was just showing a paper.
Bye,
bearophile
