Is this function pure?

[Bruce Adams]

0ffh Wrote:

> Nathan Reed wrote:
> > Exception throwing and catching is deterministic too as long as the 
> > condition that generates the exception is (which dividing by zero would 
> > be).  I think it is perfectly reasonable to allow pure functions to 
> > throw and catch exceptions.
> 
> We might even want go all the way, and *require* a pure function to throw
> an exception if it detects that functional purity has been compromised
> like in Janice's out-of-memory example.
> 
> Regards, frank

My understanding is that pure is a compile time concept. If your function can violate it its not pure, unless you have a scheme for compile time exception handling - yeauch.

Bruce.