On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 05:28:54PM +0000, Dicebot via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Friday, 27 March 2015 at 14:29:05 UTC, Shammah Chancellor wrote: > >On 2015-03-23 09:45:39 +0000, Dicebot said: > > > >>I think this was not intended and is simply a side effect of limited > >>D call graph analysis. Relaxing that limitation makes sense to me > >>because unused impure function can be used for compile-time > >>reflection or returned from pure function as a result (you need to > >>ensure it does not capture pure functions as closure context in that > >>case) > > > >Pure functions returning impure functions. *BOOM* My brain just > >exploded. > > > >-Shammah > > As long it is exactly the same impure function for given set of > arguments (including the context if any) it should comply it pure > requirements, shouldn't it?
Makes sense to me. What I'm more concerned about is whether the current compiler implementation may accidentally allow leakage of the pure function's internal context, which would break purity. T -- If you want to solve a problem, you need to address its root cause, not just its symptoms. Otherwise it's like treating cancer with Tylenol...
