4 ms·

I'm not saying it isn't - it's certainly good that it's also possible to declare something as referentially transparent, but defining the keyword "pure" to impl

• sophacles 12y ago
  In D, if a function is pure, can it call a function that modifies global state? That is to say (in not necessarily real D, just close enough) given: int global_var void modify_global(int z) { global_var += z; return global_var; } pure int foo(int x) { return x + modify_global(2); } What happens? Does the compiler barf because it causes modification to something not passed? If so, assuming that you can only modify the object passed (via methods of it, and presumably, the things that object points to in its members), then it maintains something much closer to referential transparency than you are implying.
  • nbm 12y ago
    The compiler says: /d111/f857.d(9): Error: pure function 'f857.foo' cannot call impure function 'f857.modify_global'
  • T-R 12y ago
    But that's a pretty low bar. Using just 'pure', can you mutate an argument in a function called in a conditional expression (making it unsafe to check again)? Can it matter what order a list gets processed in a call to `map` or `filter`? Preventing mutation of global variables narrows the scope of the damage, but having just that still means that if you're maintaining someone else's code, you need to double check everything for side effects, even if they'd be limited to the inputs.
    • WalterBright 12y ago
      Declare the parameter as 'const' and you know the pure function cannot mutate it. Declare it as 'immutable' and you know that nobody else can mutate it, either.
  • WalterBright 12y ago
    > In D, if a function is pure, can it call a function that modifies global state? Nope (it would be a useless feature if it could).