--- Comment #3 from Don <clugd...@yahoo.com.au> 2009-10-02 08:03:51 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > (In reply to comment #0)
> > > 2. When a function takes a reference type parameter, the chanses are
> > > slim, that
> > > the return value doesn't depend on the referenced data.
> > Yes.
> > > So the referenced data must be immutable.
> > That conclusion does not follow. I don't think you're seeing all of the
> > benefits of 'pure'.
> > Consider foo(a) + foo(a). This can be changed into 2*foo(a), even though a
> > is
> > not immutable.
> You participated in discussion of bug 3057, where I described my view of the
> problem. The question is *how* can you benefit from advertised pureness of in
> fact impure functions?
If you pass it the same *values*, you get the same results.
> > It is true that in the case where all parameters are immutable, additional
> > optimisations (such as caching) can be performed. But there's more to pure
> > than
> > that.
> But what you did with foo(a)+foo(a) if not caching? You effectively cached the
> result of function without any requirement for immutability.
You don't need immutability in this case.
foo(a) cannot change a, because foo is pure. There is nothing else in the
expression which uses a. Therefore a does not change during the expression.
(I'm assuming a is not shared). Therefore both calls to foo(a) have the same
parameters, and the transformation foo(a) + foo(a) ---> 2*foo(a) is legal.
As soon as you have an assignment, or a call to an impure function, you can't
do this any more. But if a is immutable, you have a much stronger guarantee.
> I'm asking to remove a bug from the language, because I think it's incorrect
> allow marking impure functions as pure (and later "benefit" from this).
Caching can only occur if all parameters passed to the function are the same.
If the parameters are references, you need to ensure the value being referenced
has not changed. Which is trivial if it's an immutable reference, but that's
not the _only_ case where it is true.
This is just an argument that const references _could_ be allowable in pure
functions. But after all that, the spec currently says that parameters have to
be implicitly immutable! So you can just change this to an accepts-invalid bug.
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------