forcing weak purity

[Don Clugston]

On 23/05/12 07:05, Mehrdad wrote:
> We should make 'pure' mean strongly pure.
>
> For weakly pure, we could introduce the 'doped' keyword :-D

No, the keyword should be more like @noglobal

I wish people would stop using this "weak purity" / "strong purity" 
terminology, it's very unhelpful. (And it's my fault. I've created a 
monster!)

There is absolutely no need for a keyword to mark (strong) purity, and 
"weak purity" isn't actually pure.

The real question being asked is, do we need something for logical 
purity? Note that we need the same thing for caching.

Or are the cases like this rare enough that we can just fake it with a cast?