On 12-11-26 08:11 AM, Andres G. Aragoneses wrote: > Hello, > > I just wanted to know the rationale behind the decision about having a > "pure" keyword instead of an "impure" one (in the same way, the analogy > here is that there is an "unsafe" keyword, not a "safe" one).
The decision is an old one related to a time when we had a full effect system and typestate system: the definition was too strong to meet in most cases and wound up requiring 'impure' (at the time, spelled 'io') annotations on nearly every function in normal code. It is no longer strongly justified by those reasons, imo, but I suspect any change to it now would be accompanied by an attempt to simplify the relationship between borrowing and purity altogether (it's a bit unintuitive presently). I expect there may still be some reform in this area, though the details are mostly in the heads of others presently. -Graydon _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
