Re: Ok sorry, it is just a book gives no feedback.

[Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam (Larry Kilgallen)]

In article <ZZq56.1574$xo3.422321@homer.alpha.net>, "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
> Robert Dewar wrote in message <934j5c$eu9$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>>In article <93421h$2ju$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>>That's the point, it is easy to make vague statements about
>>"side effects considered harmful", but it is quite another to
>>rigorously define what you mean by side effects.
>>
>>You do NOT want to tell people that instrumenting functions is
>>for some peculiar reason undesirable, or that memo functions
>>are undesirable (though of course in the multi-tasking case,
>>you have to worry about reentrancy in both these cases).
> 
> Indeed, that is why pragma Pure is so hard to use in practice: because
> you can't instrument or otherwise debug code controlled by it. About all
> you can do is remove the pragma, but that often makes the clients of the
> package illegal. Thus debugging these things can be horrible.

Is it the case that implementations are forbidden to allow debugger
breakpoints in code controlled by pragma Pure ?

I would think that would be well beyond what the Standard should
control.