dmd 2.029 release

[Tomas Lindquist Olsen]

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Don <nospam at nospam.com> wrote:
> bearophile wrote:
>>
>> Don:
>>>
>>> Yes. Actually, marking a nested function as pure doesn't make much sense.
>>> It's entirely equivalent to moving it outside the function; [...]
>>> I'm not sure that nested pure member functions should be legal.
>>
>> It's not fully equivalent to moving it out of the function because once
>> you pull it out you add a name to the outer namespace: nested functions are
>> useful to keep namespaces tidy too.
>> So I'd like to have nested pure functions too.
>>
>> pure int foo(int y) { return y + y; } // outer foo
>> pure void bar(int x) {
>>  pure int foo(int y) { return y * y; }
>>  return foo(x) * .foo(x);
>> }
>>
>> Thank you,
>> bye,
>> bearophile
>
> That's true, but it seems quite difficult to get right. A pure nested
> function can in theory access immutable members in the outer function -- but
> must not access the parameters of the outer function.
> If there are no immutable members in the outer function, the compiler would
> ideally convert it into an external pure function, so that it
> doesn't need a frame pointer to the outer function. But it would need error
> messages for any use of mutable outer function members. Etc.
> It seems quite a lot of work for something of very limited use.
> Making it into a external, private pure function is almost the same.
>
>
>

why not just make it a static pure nested function? or is that no
longer proper D2 ?