On 15.5.2014. 13:04, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Thu, 15 May 2014 10:48:07 +0000 > Don via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes. 'strong pure' means pure in the way that the functional >> language crowd means 'pure'. >> 'weak pure' just means doesn't use globals. >> >> But note that "strong purity" isn't an official concept, it was >> just the terminology I used when explain to Walter what I meant. >> I don't like the term because it's rather misleading >> -- in reality you could define a whole range of purity strengths >> (more than just two). >> The stronger the purity, the more optimizations you can apply. > > Yeah, I agree. The problem is that it always seems necessary to use the terms > weak pure to describe the distinction - or maybe I just suck at coming up with > a better way to describe it than you did initially. Your recent post in this > thread talking about @noglobal seems to be a pretty good alternate way to > explain it though. Certainly, the term pure throws everyone off at first. > > - Jonathan M Davis >
Yeah, +1. Or @isolated, as in "isolated from outer scopes".
