• bearophile (6/6) Dec 19 2013 Why they have removed (?) purity-on-default from Rust language:
• Dicebot (6/12) Dec 19 2013 Have just read that and my reaction was "woot?" (though as far as
• Kagamin (2/2) Dec 22 2013 No, he tells they had pure by default, but because most code is

"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

Why they have removed (?) purity-on-default from Rust language:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.rust.devel/3855


There is also the Reddit thread:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1t8y6g/why_rust_ditched_pure_functions/

Bye,
bearophile

"Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:

On Thursday, 19 December 2013 at 22:07:31 UTC, bearophile wrote:
 Why they have removed (?) purity-on-default from Rust language:
 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.rust.devel/3855


 There is also the Reddit thread:
 http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1t8y6g/why_rust_ditched_pure_functions/

 Bye,
 bearophile

Have just read that and my reaction was "woot?" (though as far as 
I have understood, it is not being removed, just refused to be 
added). Well decision itself is discussable but rationale comes 
essentially to "we can't define what `pure` means" which is.. 
weird.

"Kagamin" <spam here.lot> writes:

No, he tells they had pure by default, but because most code is 
impure, annotations became a noise.