On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Patrick Walton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Oh, in that case I totally agree. I thought Nathan was asking for the > purity specified in the function signature to always match the inferred > purity of the function--in particular, for the compiler to enforce that a > pure function is never marked impure. That was what I was objecting to. If > I misinterpreted I apologize. > > > It seems I may have misunderstood too :P -- Ziad
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
