On 04/03/2018 03:27 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 04/02/2018 11:34 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 04/02/2018 12:09 AM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
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.
There's nothing confusing about it. It's an established phrase
with millions of uses and only one meaning. According to Google
Books Ngram Viewer it's also more pervasive than either of
the two suggested alternatives:
http://goo.gl/FgXgwi
Sorry, but no.
Sorry, but this is ridiculous.
I have no desire to debate this further. (In case you find
it confusing, let me rephrase it: I do not have the desire
to debate this.)
Martin
