https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7456
Peter Alexander <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] | |m --- Comment #2 from Peter Alexander <[email protected]> 2014-01-11 16:16:52 PST --- (In reply to comment #1) > 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. Implicit conversion to immutable is only allowed with strongly pure functions, so purity strength has semantic differences, not just implementation differences. These must be documented. -- Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
