--- Comment #30 from Jonathan M Davis <> 2012-06-04 03:42:40 
PDT ---
> I think you've provided a good explanation of the high-level design of the 
> pure keyword, more than once, but it seems that you are missing that this 
> issue, at least as stated in comment 3, is actually about a very specific 
> detail: The extent to which memory reachably by manipulating passed in 
> pointers is still considered �local�, i.e. accessible by pure functions.

pure doesn't restrict pointers in any way shape or form. That's an
@safe/@trusted/@system issue, and is completely orthogonal to pure.

Configure issuemail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to