On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:10:19AM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[...]
> Yeah, basically, D's pure was originally what is now sometimes called
> "strongly pure," which is quite close to functionally pure in that the
> same input results in the same output (it still allows
On Tuesday, May 30, 2017 16:54:13 ag0aep6g via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On 05/30/2017 11:12 AM, Rene Zwanenburg wrote:
> > If malloc were marked as pure, wouldn't that mean it must return the
> > same pointer every time you call it with the same size?
>
> D's `pure` mostly means: "does not
On 05/30/2017 11:12 AM, Rene Zwanenburg wrote:
If malloc were marked as pure, wouldn't that mean it must return the
same pointer every time you call it with the same size?
D's `pure` mostly means: "does not access mutable state, and does not do
input/output".
There is never a requirement
On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 at 13:45:07 UTC, Rene Zwanenburg wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 at 11:34:52 UTC, ketmar wrote:
If malloc were marked as pure, wouldn't that mean it must
return the same pointer every time you call it with the same
size?
of course. but D "pure" is not what other world
Rene Zwanenburg wrote:
On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 at 11:34:52 UTC, ketmar wrote:
If malloc were marked as pure, wouldn't that mean it must return the
same pointer every time you call it with the same size?
of course. but D "pure" is not what other world knows as "pure". we love
to mess with
On Tuesday, 30 May 2017 at 11:34:52 UTC, ketmar wrote:
If malloc were marked as pure, wouldn't that mean it must
return the same pointer every time you call it with the same
size?
of course. but D "pure" is not what other world knows as
"pure". we love to mess with words.
Well, there's the
Rene Zwanenburg wrote:
On Monday, 29 May 2017 at 01:36:24 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
A simple example: anything that has a malloc/free pair.
Yeah, if you do it right, you should be fine, but you have to do it
right, and it's very easy to miss some detail that makes it wrong to
insist to
On Monday, 29 May 2017 at 01:36:24 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
A simple example: anything that has a malloc/free pair.
Yeah, if you do it right, you should be fine, but you have to
do it right, and it's very easy to miss some detail that makes
it wrong to insist to the compiler that what
On Monday, 29 May 2017 at 08:49:07 UTC, ketmar wrote:
Brad Roberts wrote:
libraries that themselves aren't marked pure, there's a real
need for escape hatches. A simple example: anything that has
a malloc/free pair.
they aren't pure. it is a sad misconception about purity, which
D makes
On Monday, 29 May 2017 at 11:25:06 UTC, ketmar wrote:
almost all of them, 'cause they depends on FPU rounding
settings.
Well, yeah. IIRC contemporary floating point machine language
instructions allow embedding of rounding mode into the
instruction.
A pity languages are lagging behind,
Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
On Monday, 29 May 2017 at 08:49:07 UTC, ketmar wrote:
pure. and while various functions in std.math, for example, are marked
`pure`, they aren't too.
Out of curiosity, which functions in std.math aren't "pure" in the D
sense?
almost all of them, 'cause they
On Monday, 29 May 2017 at 08:49:07 UTC, ketmar wrote:
pure. and while various functions in std.math, for example, are
marked `pure`, they aren't too.
Out of curiosity, which functions in std.math aren't "pure" in
the D sense?
Brad Roberts wrote:
libraries that themselves aren't marked pure, there's a real need for
escape hatches. A simple example: anything that has a malloc/free pair.
they aren't pure. it is a sad misconception about purity, which D makes
even more complex by allowing to mark, for example,
On Sunday, 28 May 2017 at 23:49:16 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
Is there a mechanism for declaring something pure when it's
built from parts which individually aren't?
string foo(string s)
{
// do something arbitrarily complex with s that doesn't
touch globals or change global state except
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 18:46:22 Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> Again, of course it's possible to do it wrong. Escape hatches are like
> that. And of course things are being worked on and improved, I'm one of
> the ones that's done a good bit of that at various points in time.
On 5/28/2017 6:46 PM, Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Here's the bug that I'm digging into today, a clear example of an api
that _should_ be pure, but based on the implementation is rather
difficult for the compiler to infer.
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17442
On 5/28/2017 6:36 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 17:53:25 Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On 5/28/2017 5:34 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 16:49:16 Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 18:39:02 Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On 5/28/2017 6:27 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> > There was a whole discussion or 3 is PRs about making malloc pure, and
> > IIRC, it was done and then decided that it wasn't safe to do some for
On 5/28/2017 6:27 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Monday, May 29, 2017 01:01:46 Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Monday, 29 May 2017 at 00:53:25 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
On 5/28/2017 5:34 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
On Sunday, May
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 17:53:25 Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On 5/28/2017 5:34 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 28, 2017 16:49:16 Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
> >> Is there a mechanism for declaring something pure when it's
On Monday, May 29, 2017 01:01:46 Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> On Monday, 29 May 2017 at 00:53:25 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
> > On 5/28/2017 5:34 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn
> >
> > wrote:
> >> On Sunday, May 28, 2017 16:49:16 Brad Roberts via
> >>
> >>
On Monday, 29 May 2017 at 01:12:53 UTC, Era Scarecrow wrote:
...
Hmm didn't notice the post had split. Otherwise i wouldn't have
replied... That and thinking about the GC state (outside of
allocating memory)...
On Sunday, 28 May 2017 at 23:49:16 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
// do something arbitrarily complex with s that doesn't
touch globals or change global state except possibly state of
the heap or gc
Sounds like the basic definition of pure to me; At least in
regards to D. Memory allocation
On Monday, 29 May 2017 at 01:01:46 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
There is
void[] myPureMalloc(uint size) pure @trusted nothrow @nogc
{
import core.stdc.stdlib : malloc;
alias pure_malloc_t = @nogc pure nothrow void* function(size_t
size);
return (cast(pure_malloc_t))(size)[0 .. size];
}
On 5/28/2017 6:01 PM, Stefan Koch via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Monday, 29 May 2017 at 00:53:25 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
On 5/28/2017 5:34 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 16:49:16 Brad Roberts via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Is there a mechanism
On Monday, 29 May 2017 at 00:53:25 UTC, Brad Roberts wrote:
On 5/28/2017 5:34 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 16:49:16 Brad Roberts via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Is there a mechanism for declaring something pure when it's
built from
parts which
On 5/28/2017 5:34 PM, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 16:49:16 Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Is there a mechanism for declaring something pure when it's built from
parts which individually aren't?
string foo(string s)
{
// do
On Sunday, May 28, 2017 16:49:16 Brad Roberts via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> Is there a mechanism for declaring something pure when it's built from
> parts which individually aren't?
>
> string foo(string s)
> {
> // do something arbitrarily complex with s that doesn't touch
> globals or
28 matches
Mail list logo
