Is This a Bug
gor.f.gyolchanyan at gmail.com
Tue Oct 25 03:08:53 PDT 2011
I agree, there's no point in requiring pureness, but this problem must
be dealt with anyway. The user must never receive errors regarding
invalid call of invariants.
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 25, 2011 05:38:37 bearophile wrote:
>> Jonathan M Davis:
>> > If you want it to be pure, you mark it with pure. It doesn't have to be,
>> > and it's too restrictive to require that it always is - though
>> > obviously it would ideally be pure.
>> I think it should be pure, as in other languages that have DbC... Its purity
>> helps static code analysis too, I think.
> Well, there's nothing stopping you from making your invariants pure, and in
> general, it's probably good practice. But there's no reason to _require_ that
> they be pure. Doing so would disallow potentially useful invariants for no
> real benefit. Right now, you have the option of making the pure or impure, so
> you get the best of both worlds.
> - Jonathan M Davis
More information about the Digitalmars-d