https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=12387
Steven Schveighoffer <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #4 from Steven Schveighoffer <[email protected]> 2014-03-20 08:06:18 PDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > Could you please explain what makes GC "special", but not "malloc" ? What does > one need to verify to be "special". C malloc is not any less special than GC.malloc. it could technically be marked weak-pure. I think Walter is confusing purity with strong purity. Malloc is not strong-pure, and would not be considered as such (it returns mutable pointer). It is the classic example of weak purity. > Also related: If malloc is not pure, then there is *0* chance of seeing much > use of it outside the IO module. We have gone through great lengths to keep > most range/algorithm/string functions pure and CTFE-able. Breaking that purity > is *NOT* acceptable. I agree, I think this enhancement should be reconsidered. Any allocation scheme that globally stores "unused" blocks should be considered logically pure, and therefore can be forced pure. You treat the storage area as not really existing before it's requested, so accessing that global pool isn't technically accessing global state. It isn't any different than asking the OS to supply the blocks, which should also be considered pure. -- Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
