GC.malloc is pure - wat

[anonymous via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 17:57:12 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 17:45:57 UTC, anonymous wrote:
[...]
>> I can't see how GC.malloc followed by GC.free is more pure 
>> than stdlib malloc followed by stdlib free.
>
> GC.free should probably not be pure,

Ok, fair enough.

Right now, I'd lean the other way and make stdlib free pure, too. 
Both free variants essentially invalidate their void* arguments. 
(Weakly) pure functions may tinker with their arguments, so that 
could be fine. I'm probably missing something, though. Feel free 
to enlighten me.

> but that is also not at all what you talk about in previous 
> posts, which led me to think you are essentially doing a stunt 
> as to not admit you were wrong.

Huh? I had missed that GC.malloc isn't strongly pure but weakly 
pure because the return type. I don't mean to deny that or 
distract from it. If it helps: I was wrong. My shame is great. 
Please forgive my ignorance.