Do pure functions solve the "return const" problems?

[Christopher Wright]

Janice Caron wrote:
> On 07/04/2008, Christopher Wright <dhasenan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  This already works. Why couldn't pure functions do this? You can't tell me.
>> You aren't arguing. You are just stating that the compiler can't do
>> something that it already does.
> 
> Allow me to demonstrate:
> 
>     int f(out int x) pure
>     {
>         x = 1;
>         return 0;
>     }
> 
>     int g(out int x) pure
>     {
>         x = 2;
>         return 0;
>     }
> 
>     int h() pure
>     {
>         int n;
>         int t = f(n) + g(n);
>         return n + t;
>     }
> 
> Question: What does h return?
> 
> The problem is, it depends on evaluation order. If f(n) is evaluated
> last, h() will return 1, but if g(n) is evalutated last, h() will
> return 2. Pure functions are not allowed to depend on evaluation
> order, therefore f() and g() cannot be pure - and hence, neither can
> h().
> 
> My conclusion is that you can't have out parameters in pure functions.

Yay! I got you to argue!

But you seem to be saying that, if you remove 'pure' from all those 
functions, the result will be undefined. Is this the case?