On Friday, 23 December 2016 at 17:42:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 12/23/2016 12:32 PM, Johan Engelen wrote:
On Thursday, 22 December 2016 at 20:53:37 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 21:34:04 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu
wrote:
Instead of
"Any `pure` function that is not strongly pure cannot be
memoized."
why not
"Any `pure` function that is not strongly pure _may not
be assumed to
be_ memoizable."
Got it. Good point. Will do.
That worse than the current wording.
Yes, and I fixed it a few minutes after:
https://forum.dlang.org/post/[email protected]
Is the situash good now? -- Andrei
Yeah, with the extra sentences it's clear to (at least) me. The
"cannot be assumed" may be read as "can never be assumed"; but
it's clarified at the end of the paragraph.
Perhaps I read this wrong but: the paragraph says that
non-strongly-pure functions receive no special treatment, but
then the next paragraph adds special treatment for a subset of
non-strongly-pure functions... :)
It's all nitpicking of course, and now things may be obvious. But
one year from now I'm sure we'll have trouble figuring out what
was really meant... :S
