Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!mcvax!dik
From: dik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Pure Functions (was Re: C optimizer)
Message-ID: <7910@boring.cwi.nl>
Date: 17 Feb 89 02:09:22 GMT
References: <1398@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu> <2008@goofy.megatest.UUCP> <50915@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam
Lines: 9

In article <50915@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> wald-david@CS.YALE.EDU (david wald) writes:
 > Point taken, but we still need a way to describe the difficulty with
 > treating sleep() as a pure function.
No problem, it performs a system call.  (And if you code sleep as a loop
without system call the compiler will be able to optimize it away.)
-- 
dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland
INTERNET   : dik@cwi.nl
BITNET/EARN: dik@mcvax