On 2012-02-20 06:37, Don Baccus wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2012, at 7:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> It's not clear to me whether pure/leakproof functions are meant to be a
>> strict subset of immutable functions
> Superset, not subset, unless my guessing is wrong. How could "pure" be a subset of "immutable"?
If immutable functions are not necessarily leakproof/pure, and all
leakproof/pure functions are immutable.
If the latter is not the case, "pure" leads to confusion as well.
What about "discreet"?
-- Yeb