On Sunday 12 December 2010 23:20:36 bearophile wrote: > I was away for few days and then partially busy for several more days, I am > sorry and I will try to get up to date. > > Gary Whatmore: > > Guys, I made several sockpuppet reddit accounts to mod down the two guys > > criticising this thread.< > > That's worse than desiring to add some examples of D code to Wikipedia, I > was criticized about :-) > > ------------------- > > One of the comments of the Reddit thread seems a bit interesting: > > nullc: > >When I first read about D I was hoping that they'd limit overloads to pure > >functions, a substantial decrease in the maximum > >riskyness/surprise-factor of an overload hidden operation.< > > Is requiring the Operator Overloading member functions to be pure a good > idea?
Absolutely not. I don't see what that poster thought would be gained by enforcing that, but it's _really_ easy to have useful and legitimate overloaded operators which can't be pure. Purity has its uses, but I think that that poster is overestimating them if they think that requiring overloaded operators to be pure would be generally useful, let alone solve much in the way of problems. - Jonathan M Davis
