Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Doesn't have the right ring to it, unfortunately. It's not really > immutable, it just has no side-effects. gcc and the literature both use "pure"; I'd recommend that. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
- RE: pitching names for the attribute for a function with no m... Dan Sugalski
- Re: pitching names for the attribute for a function with... Russ Allbery
- Re: pitching names for the attribute for a function with... John Porter
- Re: pitching names for the attribute for a function with... John BEPPU
- Re: pitching names for the attribute for a function with... Russ Allbery
- Re: pitching names for the attribute for a function with... Paul Johnson
- Re: pitching names for the attribute for a function with... John Porter