http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7456


Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jmdavisp...@gmx.com


--- Comment #1 from Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> 2012-02-07 10:30:43 
PST ---
There is some debate as to whether they even should be. pure is defined quite
correctly in the spec. weak vs strong purity is arguably just an implementation
detail used for optimizations. I believe that this is Don's take on it (he's
both the one who came up with strong vs weak purity and the one who updated the
spec when pure was changed).

Now, weak vs strong purity inevitably comes up when people get confused by why
the compiler allows what are weakly pure functions to be pure (particularly
when compared with what TDPL says - though I think that many just look at it
from a functional perspective and are confused even without having read TDPL).
So, there is arguably merit in defining them somewhere. But I believe that
Don's against it. He's mentioned before that he wants the terms to go away
entirely.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to