On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Patrick Walton <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 10/24/12 11:51 AM, Nathan wrote: > >> Therefore I'd propose that the purity keyword must be present and match >> the purity inference in every context where a type signature must be >> present to match the type inference. >> > > -1 on this. I think that it's often quite useful to reserve the right to > make a presently-pure function impure later without breaking callers. When > commenting out code, for example. > > Patrick > > > Wouldn't that (semantically) break code that relied on the functions being called being pure? -- Ziad
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
