Simen kjaeraas wrote:
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote:
Except that since when is anything implictly convertable to immutable?
Implicitly converted to const, yes. That happens often enough, but
immutable?
Anything that does not contain pointers or references to non-immutable
data
Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
If a pure function takes a reference/pointer, does that state that the result
of
the function will be the same on two calls to it if the reference/pointer
points
to the same data in both cases or if the data itself is unchanged?
If it's a matter of pointing to
If a pure function takes a reference/pointer, does that state that the result
of
the function will be the same on two calls to it if the reference/pointer
points
to the same data in both cases or if the data itself is unchanged?
If it's a matter of pointing to the same data, then that could
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote:
If a pure function takes a reference/pointer, does that state that the
result of
the function will be the same on two calls to it if the
reference/pointer points
to the same data in both cases or if the data itself is unchanged?
If it's a matter
On Saturday 18 September 2010 17:33:21 Simen kjaeraas wrote:
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote:
If a pure function takes a reference/pointer, does that state that the
result of
the function will be the same on two calls to it if the
reference/pointer points
to the same data in
On Saturday 18 September 2010 18:16:31 Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I don't think that *anything*
is implicitly convertable to immutable. const yes, but not immutable
Actually, I guess that value types are implicitly convertible to immutable in
the sense that you can create a new immutable value
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote:
Except that since when is anything implictly convertable to immutable?
Implicitly converted to const, yes. That happens often enough, but
immutable?
Anything that does not contain pointers or references to non-immutable
data is implicitly
