Re: pure/impure?!?!

[David Kastrup]

"Keith OHara" <address@hidden> writes:

> But I think we can remove the 'start'/'end' parameters from 'pure'
> functions for Items.  Items have a 'pure' version of their functions
> as a way to promise that these functions *not* depend on
> line-breaking.

While this sort of sentence sends up all warning flags for me regarding
future use, it's not really a concern.  For dynamic dependency tracking,
one needs to record accesses to start/end anyway.  I was planning on
providing start/end via fluid-based setters/getters but if the current
code does not actually want them anyway, that makes the refactoring
easier.

-- 
David Kastrup