Don:
> Yes. Actually, marking a nested function as pure doesn't make much sense.
> It's entirely equivalent to moving it outside the function; [...]
> I'm not sure that nested pure member functions should be legal.
It's not fully equivalent to moving it out of the function because once you
pull it out you add a name to the outer namespace: nested functions are useful
to keep namespaces tidy too.
So I'd like to have nested pure functions too.
pure int foo(int y) { return y + y; } // outer foo
pure void bar(int x) {
pure int foo(int y) { return y * y; }
return foo(x) * .foo(x);
}
Thank you,
bye,
bearophile
