From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Toon Moene <toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl>
To: Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com>
Cc: egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: New problems with gcc-2.8.0 based code - NOW FIXED!
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 13:45:00 -0000
Message-id: <9712302138.AA02753@moene.indiv.nluug.nl>
References: <199712302041.MAA25118@atrus.synopsys.com>
X-SW-Source: 1997-12/msg01253.html

Joe, you must be kiddin'

>  Imagine a C-like language where functions are pure
>  (side-effect-free) by default, and one had to say "impure"
>  to turn this off.  Clearly it would be reasonable to make
>  void functions "impure" by default, and it would seem
>  strange to be swayed by the argument that a pure void
>  function cannot then be written.  A pure void function
>  is necessarily a no-op, same as a nonvolatile asm
>  instruction with no outputs.

You are describing a Fortran-95 PURE FUNCTION :-)
[ IMPURE functions, obviously, are SUBROUTINEs ... ]

Cheers,
Toon.