Am 24.10.2012 um 05:49 schrieb Jesse Ruderman <[email protected]>:
> Should functions default to pure? > > * With > http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2012/10/12/extending-the-definition-of-purity-in-rust/ > I think most functions will be able to be pure. > > * Would avoid the problem of forgetting to mark a function as pure, > causing pain for a caller. (Or worse, causing the compiler to > generate slower code?) > > * Would encourage writing pure code, by making pure less typing than impure. > > * With > http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2012/10/23/function-and-object-types/ > the "impure" and "unsafe" modifiers would move in the same direction. > (Currently, "pure" and "unsafe" move in opposite directions from the > default, which is impure.) I like that idea very much except that there are probably situations in which one wants the reverse, i.e. modules marked as impure which then requires purity annotations for functions. boggle. _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
