On 03/27/2018 09:19 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 03/27/2018 01:38 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 03/27/2018 07:18 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>>> +Because a @code{pure} function can have no side-effects it does not
>>
>> FWIW, I'd suggest rephrasing as:
>>
>> Because a @code{pure} function cannot have side effects
>>
>> because "can have no side-effects" can be read as
>> "is allowed to have no side effects", which gave me pause
>> when I read it the first time, and is the opposite of
>> what you mean.
>
> That is what I meant: that const and pure functions are not allowed
> to have any side-effects. If they did, they could be unexpectedly
> eliminated (i.e., the behavior is undefined when such a function
> does have a side-effect).
I know, but that's not what I read the first time (and found it
odd so I had to re-read). You can either assume that I'm the
only one that will misunderstand it on first read, or you can
swap a couple words and be sure no one will misunderstand it.
Up to you.
>
> I don't have a strong preference for one phrasing over the other
> but they both say the same thing. One is just ever so slightly
> more emphatic.
>
Thanks,
Pedro Alves
