I found a regression:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6264
I also found what I think is another one, but I don't have time to
reduce it right now. In other words, if you fix the first one in short
order it's probably not worth immediately making another release. I'll
get busy with isolating the second regression tonight.
On 7/7/2011 12:47 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/6/2011 9:45 PM, Don Clugston wrote:
On 7 July 2011 03:12, Jason House<[email protected]> wrote:
On Jul 6, 2011, at 6:02 PM, Walter Bright<[email protected]>
wrote:
On 7/6/2011 2:12 PM, David Simcha wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Walter Bright<[email protected]>
wrote:
This is what I have difficulty with. Consider:
pure void foo(int* p) { *p = 3; }
That isn't pure, or weakly pure.
???? Yes it is. It can be called from a strongly pure function without
violating purity
Yes, but it is not pure itself.
Eek! Walter, I think you have a severe misunderstanding of Don's
weak/strong
purity concept. Doing a quick google search, I found the following
link:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg40808.html
Walter, I don't know what's happened here. You seem to have forgotten
the whole point, somehow.
The whole point of the 'weak pure' concept was that, provided a
function doesn't directly access global variables, it is OK for it to
be called from a strongly pure function.
If a function is weakly pure, that means pretty much nothing. You
can't do any optimization with it, etc.
The one and only thing is gives you, is that it can safely be called
from a strongly pure function.
You seem to be removing weak purity from the language???
I put up a new beta with it back in.
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
_______________________________________________
dmd-beta mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-beta
