Purity in D – new article

[Don Clugston]

On 29/05/12 19:35, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 May 2012 at 12:08:08 UTC, Don Clugston wrote:
>> And to set the record straight -- the relaxed purity ideas were not my
>> idea.
>> I forget who first said them, but it wasn't me. I just championed them.
>
> Unfortunately, I don't quite remember either – was it Bruno Medeiros? In
> any case, if somebody can help my memory here, I'd be glad to give
> credit to the one who came up with the original proposal in the article
> as well.
>
> David

The successful proposal, using "weakly pure/strongly pure" (Sep 21 2010):

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Proposal_Relax_rules_for_pure_117735.html

It"s basically the same as this one by Bruno (Apr 29 2008), which uses 
"partially pure" and mentions an earlier post by me:

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Idea_partially_pure_functions_70762.html#N70762

And the earliest reference I could find is by me (Apr 5 2008) where I 
called it an "amoral" function.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/Grafting_Functional_Support_on_Top_of_an_Imperative_Language_69253.html

The first compiler release with pure function attributes (though not 
implemented) was released in Apr 22, 2008 and the first with pure as a 
keyword was Jan 20 2008.
So surely this is close to the original.

So now I'm confused, maybe it *was* me after all!????
Then formalized by Bruno, and later championed by me?