Re: pitching names for the attribute for a function with no memor y or side effects

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

Re: pitching names for the attribute for a function with no memor y or side effects

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

Re: pitching names for the attribute for a function with no memor y or side effects

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

Re: pitching names for the attribute for a function with no memor y or side effects

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

Re: pitching names for the attribute for a function with no memor y or side effects

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

Re: pitching names for the attribute for a function with no memor y or side effects

[ 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.

Re: pitching names for the attribute for a function with no memor y or side effects

Russ Allbery wrote: > gcc and the literature both use "pure"; I'd recommend that. Excellent! So I wasn't pulling it out of... thin air. :-) I like pure too, but I'm afraid the nuance of it will be completely lost on non-Functional programmers. -- John Porter Like music? Then you're gonna lov

Re: pitching names for the attribute for a function with no memor y or side effects

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])

RE: pitching names for the attribute for a function with no memor y or side effects

At 03:30 PM 3/30/2001 -0600, Garrett Goebel wrote: >From: John Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Dan Sugalski wrote: > > > > > > :contained. Or possibly :irrelevant, since generally > > > speaking most people won't use it and the optimizer > > > will have to infer whether it's safe to not exec