Axiomatic purity of D

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

lurker wrote:
> Justin Johansson Wrote:
> 
>> To what degree do the author and advocates of the D(2) Programming
>> Language believe that it is axiomatically pure and to what degree
>> to the naysayers believe that it is conversely impure.  Further,
>> does axiomatic purity in a PL really matter?
>>
>> Thanks in advance for all opinions offered.
> 
> What *is* axiomatic purity? A quick google books search returned titles like:
> 
> "Jesus remembered"
> "American physics in transition: a history of conceptual change in"
> "Feminism-art-theory: an anthology, 1968-2000"
> "Feminism and tradition in aesthetics"
> "Constructive interventions: paradigms, process and practice of .."
> "Agriculture and rural connections in the Pacific, 1500-1900"
> "Possessed by the past: the heritage crusade and the spoils of history"
> 

It's safety, which requires two proofs: progress and preservation. I 
found this excerpt from a book I'd recommend:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ti6zoAC9Ph8C&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=safety+%3D+progress+%2B+preservation&source=bl&ots=EzM9xEpZWD&sig=CJrn0iCMOCrBk_YF9CvXn-2GG60&hl=en&ei=nnJTTIyREoigsQPY8JXaAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=safety%20%3D%20progress%20%2B%20preservation&f=false


Andrei