• bearophile (16/16) Nov 10 2012 Do you remember if Hara has implemented a patch to allow a2 to be
• Timon Gehr (3/19) Nov 10 2012 It is strongly pure regardless of potential aliasing in the return
• bearophile (8/10) Nov 10 2012 This can't be strongly pure:
• Timon Gehr (3/13) Nov 10 2012 The point was that the code you gave should work even without your
• bearophile (5/7) Nov 10 2012 So my original question was: do you remember if Hara has already

"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

Do you remember if Hara has implemented a patch to allow a2 to be 
immutable?


int[] foo1(int x) pure {
     return null;
}
int[] foo2(string s) pure {
     return null;
}
void main() {
     immutable a1 = foo1(10); // OK
     immutable a2 = foo2("hello"); // currently error
}


The idea behind this is that the type of s is different from the 
return type of foo2, so foo2 is a strongly pure function.

Bye,
bearophile

Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:

On 11/10/2012 03:32 PM, bearophile wrote:
 Do you remember if Hara has implemented a patch to allow a2 to be
 immutable?


 int[] foo1(int x) pure {
      return null;
 }
 int[] foo2(string s) pure {
      return null;
 }
 void main() {
      immutable a1 = foo1(10); // OK
      immutable a2 = foo2("hello"); // currently error
 }


 The idea behind this is that the type of s is different from the return
 type of foo2, so foo2 is a strongly pure function.

 Bye,
 bearophile

It is strongly pure regardless of potential aliasing in the return 
value. This is a bug.

"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

Timon Gehr:

 It is strongly pure regardless of potential aliasing in the 
 return value. This is a bug.

This can't be strongly pure:


int[] foo2(int[] a) pure {
     a[0]++;
     return a;
}


Bye,
bearophile

Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:

On 11/10/2012 05:21 PM, bearophile wrote:
 Timon Gehr:

 It is strongly pure regardless of potential aliasing in the return
 value. This is a bug.

 This can't be strongly pure:


 int[] foo2(int[] a) pure {
      a[0]++;
      return a;
 }


 Bye,
 bearophile

The point was that the code you gave should work even without your 
proposed enhancement.

"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

Timon Gehr:

 The point was that the code you gave should work even without 
 your proposed enhancement.

So my original question was: do you remember if Hara has already 
written a patch to fix that bug? :-)

Bye,
bearophile