http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4974
yebblies yebbl...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4974
--- Comment #4 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-11-09 04:13:41 PST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
I rather like the idea of the compiler
acting like all invariants are pure so that you can have pure functions and
still be able to use stuff
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4974
--- Comment #5 from Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au 2010-11-09 04:33:50 PST ---
(In reply to comment #3)
As
it is, marking an invariant as pure does seem to make it possible to have pure
functions, but it eliminates your ability to print debug
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4974
--- Comment #6 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2010-11-09 04:40:16 PST ---
(In reply to comment #5)
You should be able to do printf-style debugging in ANY pure function.
Do you mean something like this?
pure void foo() {
debug {
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4974
Don clugd...@yahoo.com.au changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clugd...@yahoo.com.au
---
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4974
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com 2010-11-08 22:36:47
PST ---
Well, marking an invariant as pure does seem to actually make it pure which is
a definite improvement, though honestly, I rather like the idea of the compiler
