Proposal: Relax rules for 'pure'

Don nospam at nospam.com
Fri Sep 24 07:23:18 PDT 2010


retard wrote:
> Thu, 23 Sep 2010 22:35:23 +0200, Tomek Sowiński wrote:
> 
>> dsimcha napisał:
>>
>>> 1.  The documentation that says that the parameters need to be
>>> convertible to immutable is outdated.  This was changed a while ago to
>>> only requiring const.
>> Good to know. Yet, I wonder why such changes are not discussed on this
>> NG and at the very least announced in the change log...
> 
> Just download the documentation of two subsequent versions and run gnu 
> diff. It's that simple.

It's not in the docs. I don't remember ever hearing about this, and I 
can't find this documented anywhere. And I made the patches for all of 
the improvements to the compiler's support for pure which have happened 
in the last year.

There have always been bugs where the compiler accepts 'const' instead 
of immutable. These date back to 2.022, when pure was first implemented.

In fact, my motivation in bringing up this topic was after I observed 
these bugs, and realized that most existing 'pure' code will break when 
they are fixed. Also 'pure' will become even more useless than it is now.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list