Memory allocation purity

[Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d]

On Thu, 15 May 2014 10:48:07 +0000
Don via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:

> Yes. 'strong pure' means pure in the way that the functional
> language crowd means 'pure'.
> 'weak pure' just means doesn't use globals.
>
> But note that "strong purity" isn't an official concept, it was
> just the terminology I used when explain to Walter what I meant.
> I don't like the term because it's rather misleading
> -- in reality you could define a whole range of purity strengths
> (more than just two).
> The stronger the purity, the more optimizations you can apply.

Yeah, I agree. The problem is that it always seems necessary to use the terms
weak pure to describe the distinction - or maybe I just suck at coming up with
a better way to describe it than you did initially. Your recent post in this
thread talking about @noglobal seems to be a pretty good alternate way to
explain it though. Certainly, the term pure throws everyone off at first.

- Jonathan M Davis