Pure: Difference between revisions
Benmachine (talk | contribs) (Created page with "A function is called '''pure''' if it corresponds to a function in the mathematical sense: it associates each possible input value with an output value, and does nothing else....") |
m (Extra reference added) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
* [http://conal.net/blog/posts/the-c-language-is-purely-functional The C language is purely functional] (some satire intended), | * [http://conal.net/blog/posts/the-c-language-is-purely-functional The C language is purely functional] (some satire intended), | ||
* [http://conal.net/blog/posts/is-haskell-a-purely-functional-language Is Haskell a purely functional language?] | * [http://conal.net/blog/posts/is-haskell-a-purely-functional-language Is Haskell a purely functional language?] | ||
* [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4865616/purity-vs-referential-transparency Purity vs Referential transparency], Stack Overflow. | |||
[[Category:Glossary]] | [[Category:Glossary]] | ||
Revision as of 13:26, 1 October 2021
A function is called pure if it corresponds to a function in the mathematical sense: it associates each possible input value with an output value, and does nothing else. In particular,
- it has no side effects, that is to say, invoking it produces no observable effect other than the result it returns; it cannot also e.g. write to disk, or print to a screen.
- it does not depend on anything other than its parameters, so when invoked in a different context or at a different time with the same arguments, it will produce the same result.
A programming language may be called purely functional if evaluation of expressions is pure.
There has been some debate in the past as to the precise meaning of these terms. See also:
- What is a Purely Functional Language? a 1993 paper which presents a proposed formal definition of the concept,
- The C language is purely functional (some satire intended),
- Is Haskell a purely functional language?
- Purity vs Referential transparency, Stack Overflow.