Uh... destructors?

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 10:35:26 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:

> On 2/23/11 9:00 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 08:04:49 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/22/11 3:14 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 15:48:42 -0500, %u <wfunction at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> D pure functions are significantly different than this definition
>>>>> (as of recent times, when weak-pure was added).
>>>>>> Essentially, a pure function cannot access global variables.
>>>>> However, it can access variables referred to via a member of the
>>>>> object instance.
>>>>>> i.e. this is a valid pure function:
>>>>> class C
>>>>> {
>>>>> int x;
>>>>> pure void foo() { x++; }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> I... did not know that. But even in that case, pure wouldn't make  
>>>>> much
>>>>> sense, because doing anything like freeing memory or closing a file
>>>>> handle affects global variables (whether directly in the runtime or
>>>>> indirectly in the OS)... right?
>>>>
>>>> Freeing and allocating memory is fair game for pure functions.
>>>
>>> I don't think freeing memory is pure.
>>
>> Why not? If it shouldn't be allowed, it should be easy to show with an
>> example of why.
>>
>> -Steve
>
> free(p) affects data remotely outside the pure function.

This is allowed however in the new pure regime:

pure void foo(int *x) {(*x)++;}

int x;
foo(&x);

Or do you mean something else?

-Steve