I just got it! (invariant/const)
Bill Baxter
dnewsgroup at billbaxter.com
Wed Apr 9 09:38:46 PDT 2008
guslay wrote:
> Janice Caron Wrote:
>
>> On 09/04/2008, Georg Wrede <georg at nospam.org> wrote:
>>
>> int f(invariant D d) invariant pure { ... }
>
> Shouldn't it be
>
> int f(invariant D d) pure { ... }
>
> Pure functions are a subset of invariant functions, no?
Just a nitpick, but "pure" applies to the function as a whole. So
there's no reason not to put it at the head with 'static' and protection
levels. There's no 'pure int'. It's not going to be a type
constructor. Just a storage class. AFAIK.
--bb
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list