<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On 13 January 2014 02:37, Andrei Alexandrescu <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org" target="_blank">SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On 1/12/14 2:49 AM, Peter Alexander wrote:<br>

<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Sunday, 12 January 2014 at 02:11:18 UTC, Manu wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
But pure functions can (and do) return their arguments, and it's<br>
obviously<br>
not a 'strongly pure' function. So I just can't see how the assertion<br>
that<br>
it should be unique stands?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
That's the bug. Your function isn't strongly pure, so the result<br>
shouldn't be convertible to immutable and isn't necessarily unique. Only<br>
strongly pure functions can have results convertible to immutable.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Yep. Has this been placed in bugzilla? It's rather hi-pri.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I wasn't sure if it was definitely a bug. Certainly seemed like one though.</div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11908">https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11908</a><br>
</div></div></div></div>