John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> 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
Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> 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 vers
Frank Tobin wrote:
> While the
> term "pure", surely can be deemed "correct" in the context of functional
> programming, it cannot in standard Perl programming.
> considering context in which most Perl is written, "pure" has no
> meaning, and hence I wouldn't consider it "correct".
No, "pure fu
Paul Johnson, at 01:03 +0200 on Sun, 1 Apr 2001, wrote:
Without commenting on main theme of this thread, although I have plenty
of opinions on that too, and not wanting to open too many cans of
worms, may I simply mention that I hope we are not trying to cater too
much to the ave
On Sat, Mar 31, 2001 at 02:01:39PM -0600, Frank Tobin wrote:
> John BEPPU, at 12:50 -0700 on Sat, 31 Mar 2001, wrote:
>
> > I like pure too, but I'm afraid the nuance of it will be
> > completely lost on non-Functional programmers.
>
> not to worry... If anything, it might educate t
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
John BEPPU, at 12:50 -0700 on Sat, 31 Mar 2001, wrote:
> I like pure too, but I'm afraid the nuance of it will be
> completely lost on non-Functional programmers.
not to worry... If anything, it might educate them. I
didn't really grok functional programming before I got
to
At 03:38 PM 3/29/2001 -0800, David Whipp wrote:
> > From: Dan Sugalski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > I'm hoping to have this stage of optimization in perl. Off by
> > default with
> > a normal parse-and-go run (though certainly enableable if you
> > want), on by
> > default with the bytecode comp
[ date ] 2001/03/30 | Friday | 11:16 PM
[ author ] John Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Russ Allbery wrote:
> > gcc and the literature both use "pure"; I'd recommend that.
John Porter wrote:
> I like pure too, but I'm afraid the nuance of it will be
> completely lost on non-Functional programmers.
