www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 9148] New: 'pure' is broken

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9148

           Summary: 'pure' is broken
           Product: D
           Version: D2
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: critical
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: timon.gehr gmx.ch



- There is no way to specify that a delegate is strongly pure without resorting
to type deduction, because
  - Member functions/local functions are handled inconsistently.
    - Delegate types legally obtained from certain member functions are illegal
to declare.
    - 'pure' means 'weakly pure' for member functions and 'strongly pure' for
local functions. Therefore it means 'weakly pure' for delegates, as those can
be obtained from both.
- Delegates may break the transitivity of immutable, and by extension, shared.

A good first step in fixing up immutable/shared would be to make everything
that is annotated 'error' pass, and the line annotated 'ok' should fail:

import std.stdio;

struct S{
    int x;
    int foo()pure{
        return x++;
    }
    int bar()immutable pure{
        // return x++; // error
        return 2;
    }
}

int delegate()pure s(){
    int x;
    int foo()pure{
        // return x++; // error
        return 2;
    }
    /+int bar()immutable pure{ // error
        return 2;
    }+/
    return &foo;
}

void main(){
    S s;
    int delegate()pure dg = &s.foo;
    // int delegate()pure immutable dg2 = &s.bar; // error
    writeln(dg(), dg(), dg(), dg()); // 0123
    immutable int delegate()pure dg3 = dg; // ok
    writeln(dg3(), dg3(), dg3(), dg3()); // 4567
    // static assert(is(typeof(cast()dg3)==int delegate() immutable pure)); //
error
    auto bar = &s.bar;
    pragma(msg, typeof(bar)); // "int delegate() immutable pure"
}

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 13 2012