Purity (D2 standard libraries / object.d)

[Bill Baxter]

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Christopher Wright <dhasenan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> But the call for a memoization thingy I just don't get.  No way that
>> should be a compiler feature, just far too many ways to memoize with
>> too many different tradeoffs.  And a memoizing wrapper function
>> basically loses nothing in terms of expressiveness.
>>
>> --bb
>
> The ability for you to memoize a pure function and get a pure function as a
> result. Your pure functions can't use the memoized version of the pure
> function.
>
> This means you might have to use a lot more memoization wrappers.

Isn't this the same old "logically const" vs "const" argument we went
through ages ago?

--bb