Unofficial wish list status.(Jul 2008)

[Jason House]

Walter Bright wrote:

> Jason House wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> Because any function that takes a string argument (strings are
> invariant) would then have to be a pure function. You couldn't even write:
> 
>      writefln("hello world");
> 
> because I/O functions cannot be pure.

I must have really messed up something that I said somewhere along the line
because you're the second person to think that!  writefln is neither
invariant nor pure and would not be modified by this discussion.