Bruno Medeiros: > I think that the concession that pure will be allowed to allocate memory > does inescapably remove some of the guarantees that pure functions offer > (like that one that the return value depends only on the arguments). > One possible fix to this would be to say that the allocated memory must > be temporary (used only during the execution of the pure function). Thus > you would not be able to return any newly-allocated value. But I don't > know if this further restriction is desirable or not. I don't remember > if this aspect of memory allocation in pure functions was > discussed/thought-out extensively or not. (it probably needs to)
I have discussed this a bit with Steven Schveighoffer, see the @transparent attribute, in this "Uh... destructors?" thread: http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=130554 Bye, bearophile
