Pure Function
In computer programming, a function may be described as pure if both these statements about the function hold:
- The function always evaluates the same result value given the same argument value(s). The function result value cannot depend on any hidden information or state that may change as program execution proceeds or between different executions of the program, nor can it depend on any external input from I/O devices.
- Evaluation of the result does not cause any semantically observable side effect or output, such as mutation of mutable objects or output to I/O devices.
The result value need not depend on all (or any) of the argument values. However, it must depend on nothing other than the argument values. The function may return multiple result values and these conditions must apply to all returned values for the function to be considered pure. If an argument is call by reference it is considered to be a combination of one argument and one return value and so the argument will get overwritten; because of this call by reference will make an expression impure even if the function called is pure.
Read more about Pure Function: Pure Expressions, Impure Functions in Pure Expressions, See Also
Famous quotes containing the words pure and/or function:
“‘Tis said that courage is common, but the immense esteem in which it is held proves it to be rare. Animal resistance, the instinct of the male animal when cornered, is no doubt common; but the pure article, courage with eyes, courage with conduct, self-possession at the cannon’s mouth, cheerfulness in lonely adherence to the right, is the endowment of elevated characters.”
—Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)
“Philosophical questions are not by their nature insoluble. They are, indeed, radically different from scientific questions, because they concern the implications and other interrelations of ideas, not the order of physical events; their answers are interpretations instead of factual reports, and their function is to increase not our knowledge of nature, but our understanding of what we know.”
—Susanne K. Langer (1895–1985)