Should we add support for recognition of pure functions? These functions don’t
refer to any global state; their return values / outgoing in-out parameter
states depend solely on the incoming argument values. I know at least the D
programming language acknowledges them.
- Should they be marked
> As Andy says, the major problem is that public API (which you can't see
the implementation of in general) would all need to be marked up properly.
The use-case I'm most interested in is reducing programmer error, I'm
personally not too concerned about optimisations achieved by "pure" at this
sta
> On Sep 9, 2017, at 10:48 AM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> on Wed Aug 23 2017, Joe Groff wrote:
On Aug 18, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution
wrote: Splitting this out from the
concurrency thread:
> On Aug 18, 2017, at 6:12 A
on Wed Aug 23 2017, Joe Groff
wrote:
On Aug 18, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution
wrote: Splitting this out from the
concurrency thread:
On Aug 18, 2017, at 6:12 AM, Matthew Johnson
wrote:
On Aug 17, 2017, at 11:53 PM, Chris Lattner
wrote:
In the manifesto
> On Aug 18, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> Splitting this out from the concurrency thread:
>
>>
>> On Aug 18, 2017, at 6:12 AM, Matthew Johnson wrote:
>>> On Aug 17, 2017, at 11:53 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>>>
In the manifesto you talk about restric
As Andy says, the major problem is that public API (which you can't see the
implementation of in general) would all need to be marked up properly.
-Chris
> On Aug 18, 2017, at 2:45 PM, David Sweeris wrote:
>
>
>> On Aug 18, 2017, at 12:11, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution
>> wrote:
>>
>>
> On Aug 18, 2017, at 2:45 PM, David Sweeris via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> If we define our semantics carefully enough, could we realistically make it
> so that "@pure" or "@impure" (or whatever) would simply be a note to the
> compiler, letting it skip that bit of analysis for the functio
> On Aug 18, 2017, at 12:11, Chris Lattner via swift-evolution
> wrote:
>
> Splitting this out from the concurrency thread:
>
>>
>>> On Aug 18, 2017, at 6:12 AM, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Aug 17, 2017, at 11:53 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
In the manifesto you talk about restric
Splitting this out from the concurrency thread:
>
> On Aug 18, 2017, at 6:12 AM, Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> On Aug 17, 2017, at 11:53 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>>
>>> In the manifesto you talk about restrictions on passing functions across an
>>> actor message. You didn’t discuss pure function