On 04/09/13 12:51, kenji hara wrote: > 2013/4/9 Timon Gehr <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > > On 04/09/2013 12:13 PM, Artur Skawina wrote: > > [snip] > > > That's not pure by any definition, > > > I'd counter that it is pure by the D definition. > > > I completely agree with Timon. It's the definition in D.
A function that both directly depends on global mutable state (and modifies it) can hardly be called pure. Can you (anybody) give a D "pure" definition that allows for the program that I've posted and still makes "pure" useful? artur
