http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10368
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]> 2013-06-15 14:59:55 PDT --- Actually, I take that back. The constructor here _is_ strongly pure. The problem is not strong vs weak. The problem is that the compiler must guarantee that nothing outside of the function ends up in the constructed object (or the return value if we were dealing with a function returning a new object rather than a constructor). And in _most_ cases, strong purity is enough for that (and weak purity is often enough if the constructor's body is examined appropriately), but the example shows how it's possible for a strongly pure function to inadvertently cast away immutability on something which it doens't own thanks to the fact that normally having pure functions access statics or globals which are immutable isn't a problem. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
