Revised RFC on range design for D2

[KennyTM~]

Jason House wrote:
> 
> 
> Const and immutable functions can modify global state... So I don't think you'd want that.
>

Does "pure" in an object method takes the object itself as input also? 
If so, then I mean the parenthesis can be omitted if the method is pure.
If not, then it has no solution in current D.

The problem is I see no official examples in pure object methods. So far 
I can only find mentioning of pure global functions, or I've overlooked.

> 
> PS: D's const functions don't guarantee they won't modify the object.
> 

I still can't quite grasp the invariant-madness in D :p Practically I 
have only used the "in" storage class in parameter list*, invariant 
methods and .idup for some string-related manipulations.

P.S. *: "in" was "invariant scope". When did it changed to "const scope"??

> 
> 
> 
>> I don't know what's the use of global functions that is pure AND does 
>> not take any input.
>>
>>> Obviously, we're talking about property getters and not setters. I was told once already that such things are off topic :) I think it's relevant to the spirit of the conversation.
>