Greetings, * Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 9:17 PM Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > > Actually, some geometric comparisons are performed counting > > > tolerance margin, the validity of which is in doubt. Their > > > behavior has been changed in recent major version and still has a > > > room for improvement, and the functions are parallel-safe and > > > immutable. Immutablity is mentiond mainly in the light of > > > optimization in the documentation. > > > > I really don't buy off on these arguments in the least. I also didn't > > say that a function wasn't allowed to change- but that the output of an > > immutable function, for a given input, shouldn't change and in the very > > rare case where we absolutely had to make a change, it had better be for > > a very good reason and we need to consider the impact on user indexes. > > I think you're getting a little carried away here. Kyotaro-san's > argument seems extremely strong to me, so much so that I can't really > see how you can argue against it. If we have a bug that says 1 + 1 = > 3, we are going to fix it. We're not going say, oh, well, it's an > immutable function, so we're just going to carry on having it return > the wrong answer. That would be ridiculous. > > It feels to me like you are trying to turn this into some kind of > principled stand against evil people who don't care about > immutability, but rumors that the barbarians are at the gates seem > greatly exaggerated from where I sit.
I'd suggest you read through the rest of the thread and see my response to Tom. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
