On Jun 10, 11 01:51, KennyTM~ wrote:
Given that the 'new' expression can be used in 'pure', should it be that
GC allocation functions like GC.malloc, GC.qalloc and GC.extend (?) be
weakly pure also? And should it apply to other managed allocators as
well, e.g. the proposed TempAlloc?
I'm asking
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:59:55 -0400, pillsy wrote:
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 13:51:31 -0400, KennyTM~ wrote:
> Given that the 'new' expression can be used in 'pure', should it be
that
> GC allocation functions like GC.malloc, GC.q
== Quote from Steven Schveighoffer (schvei...@yahoo.com)'s article
> On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 13:51:31 -0400, KennyTM~ wrote:
> > Given that the 'new' expression can be used in 'pure', should it be that
> > GC allocation functions like GC.malloc, GC.qalloc and GC.extend (?) be
> > weakly pure also?
>
Kagamin:
> Won't this pollute everything with @trasparent annotations, because code
> usually doesn't depend on pointer value so it would want to work on
> transparent pointers.
Probably some compromise is better, that allows you to drop this annotation in
most situations where it's not necess
bearophile Wrote:
> Did you miss the discussion I've had here about the @trasparent? The
> allocation of heap memory can be considered pure if you use the allocated
> memory as a referentially transparent value (this means it's allowed to be
> used by reference, but your code is not allowed to
On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 13:51:31 -0400, KennyTM~ wrote:
Given that the 'new' expression can be used in 'pure', should it be that
GC allocation functions like GC.malloc, GC.qalloc and GC.extend (?) be
weakly pure also? And should it apply to other managed allocators as
well, e.g. the proposed T
Andrei:
> GC.malloc is not technically pure because its result does not only
> depend on arguments - it's a fresh value each time. So the compiler
> can't apply pure reasoning to it.
So is the ptr field of a dynamic array allocated inside a strongly pure
function.
Did you miss the discussion
On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 16:08:33 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 6/9/11 12:51 PM, KennyTM~ wrote:
Given that the 'new' expression can be used in 'pure', should it be that
GC allocation functions like GC.malloc, GC.qalloc and GC.extend (?) be
weakly pure also? And should it apply to other ma
On 6/9/11 12:51 PM, KennyTM~ wrote:
Given that the 'new' expression can be used in 'pure', should it be that
GC allocation functions like GC.malloc, GC.qalloc and GC.extend (?) be
weakly pure also? And should it apply to other managed allocators as
well, e.g. the proposed TempAlloc?
I'm asking t
Steven Schveighoffer:
> Don? Any ideas here? I'm thinking we might need an compiler pragma.
> This would be extremely seldom used.
We're back to some concept of referential transparency of pointers/reference
types, that has produced a tepid response... :-)
Bye,
bearophile
On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 13:51:31 -0400, KennyTM~ wrote:
Given that the 'new' expression can be used in 'pure', should it be that
GC allocation functions like GC.malloc, GC.qalloc and GC.extend (?) be
weakly pure also?
Yes. But one of the possible issues here: weak purity is determined by
th
Given that the 'new' expression can be used in 'pure', should it be that
GC allocation functions like GC.malloc, GC.qalloc and GC.extend (?) be
weakly pure also? And should it apply to other managed allocators as
well, e.g. the proposed TempAlloc?
I'm asking this as one of the specializations
12 matches
Mail list logo
