On 27/04/12 20:25, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 07:25:30PM +0200, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
I was more concerned that the compiler wasn't identifying what to me
was a violation of purity. I'm fairly sure I can also find a way to
make some of those "nothrow" functions throw an error ...
It's not a violation of purity, it's just "weak purity". If you try to
access a global variable, for example, it will trigger an error.
Thanks for the extended description of weak purity -- it's been very helpful in
understanding the concept better.
Is there a particular way in which I can explicitly mark a function as strongly
pure?
And nothrow functions *are* allowed to throw Error objects. That's also
a deliberate decision. :-)
... yes, as I just found out when I decided to test it 2 minutes ago :-) OTOH I
found that with or without the nothrow option, when the -release flag was used
in compiling the code, the error was not thrown and the program did not exit --
it just sat there seemingly running but doing nothing. This was unexpected ...
The deliberate error was in this case a range exception when accessing an array.
