Improvement in pure functions specification
Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Wed Dec 21 13:34:59 PST 2016
On 12/21/2016 03:10 PM, Johan Engelen wrote:
> On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 at 20:04:04 UTC, Johan Engelen wrote:
>>
>> "Any `pure` function that is not strongly pure _may not be assumed
>> to be_ memoizable."
>
> That version of mine is also not correct :(
>
> How about: "A strongly pure function can be assumed to be memoizable.
> For a not strongly pure function, well, `pure` does not add information
> regarding memoizability."
OK save for the colloquial "well". -- Andrei
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list