• "H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> Jan 16 2012
• "Jesse Phillips" <jessekphillips+D gmail.com> Jan 16 2012
• Joshua Reusch <yoschi arkandos.de> Jan 17 2012

"H. S. Teoh" <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> writes:

The following code compiles without error:

	class C {
		int x;

		// what does 'pure void' mean??
		pure void f() {
			x++;		// why is this legal?
		}
	}

What does 'pure' mean when applied to a member function? Based on
Andrei's book, 'pure' means that the function's result depends only on
its input. And based on the fact this code compiles, I deduced that
'this' is included as part of the function's input.

However, the function is clearly changing one of its inputs (changing a
member of 'this'). Furthermore, what on earth is 'pure void' supposed to
mean and why does the compiler accept it?

Changing the function to read:

	pure int f() { return x++; }

also compiles without any complaint from the compiler. Yet calling
writeln() from within f() produces an error. Why?


T

--
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences.  You have
biases.  He/She has prejudices. -- Gene Wirchenko

"Jesse Phillips" <jessekphillips+D gmail.com> writes:

On Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 05:16:33 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 The following code compiles without error:

 	class C {
 		int x;

 		// what does 'pure void' mean??
 		pure void f() {
 			x++;		// why is this legal?
 		}
 	}

 What does 'pure' mean when applied to a member function?


This is a weakly pure function usable by strongly pure functions. 
Namely it is a helper function to those that can claim to be 
strongly pure.

Maybe bearophile's blog will shed some light:

http://leonardo-m.livejournal.com/99194.html

Or stackoverflow:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5812186/pure-functional-programming-in-d

 Furthermore, what on earth is 'pure void' supposed to
 mean and why does the compiler accept it?


Well it can only be useful as a weakly pure function as those are 
allowed to modify their arguments.

In any case, if the function was strongly pure:

pure void foo() {}

any call to it would just be eliminated as having no side effects.

Joshua Reusch <yoschi arkandos.de> writes:

Am 17.01.2012 17:19, schrieb Jesse Phillips:
 On Tuesday, 17 January 2012 at 16:07:08 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
 Do the current D compilers implement memoization?


 Not that I know of.


dmd not, but phobos: http://dlang.org/phobos/std_functional.html#memoize

But as a library implementation, it is not applied automatically.

PS: The dlang.org site appears to be faster as usual ! Great news :)