On 03/27/2018 03:21 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
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'm chiming in a little late here, but I agree with Pedro that "can have
no side-effects" is confusing. I'd say "cannot have side effects" or
"must have no side effects" instead.
Also note that non-hyphenated "side effects" seems to be preferred usage
as a noun phrase (at least it's the only form listed by m-w.com).
-Sandra
