Memory allocation purity

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 19 May 2014 at 06:30:46 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> makes dealing with immutable far, far more pleasant. It's 
> particularly useful
> when you need to allocate an immutable object but also need to 
> mutate it as
> part of initializing it. If you do it in a pure function where 
> the compiler
> knows that the object couldn't have been passed in, then the 
> return type can
> be freely converted to various levels of mutability - including 
> immutable -
> without having to use immutable within the function.

It does not appear as a clean design that functions should have 
different semantics than a block. What matters is that the object 
reference is unique. Confusing this with pure seems like a bad 
idea.