On 10/6/14 1:01 PM, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Monday, 6 October 2014 at 16:38:37 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I filed this ER ages ago: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1654
Not sure if anyone has it on their radar at this point.
-Steve
I didn't read the whole thing, but wouldn't purity be a major game
changer for 1654?
Of course! It was immediately what I thought of when purity = unique was
introduced (that and dup/idup).
This aspect has not been mentioned on the thread, but that issue is
really old.
-Steve
