Frank Tobin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just because one programming paradigm happens to name it "pure" doesn't
> mean that name should be carried over to other paradigms. In a
> functional-programming context, sure, "pure" might be a good name. But
> in a non-functional context, the name has little meaning with regards to
> the concept of "nosideeffects".
It looks like I was misremembering; I remember a proposal for a "pure"
attribute in gcc, but it looks like the attribute used for functions with
no memory references and no side effects is "const" (a la C++). I think
"pure" was proposed for the somewhat relaxed version of that that allowed
memory references but not side effects.
--
Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
