Unofficial wish list status.(Jul 2008)

[Jason House]

Walter Bright Wrote:

> Jason House wrote:
> > No, I'm not.  I'm only suggesting that functions that are invariant
> > and const functions are redefined to be like pure functions...
> > Merging concepts together.  There's no reason for an invariant
> > argument to a function require the function itself to be
> > invariant/pure.
> 
> If invariance and purity were merged, then the whole system of invariant 
> strings, which works great, would have to be scrapped. I don't see a 
> gain that approaches that downside.

Why is that? The only thing I can think of is the dup function.