Pure instead of constant in new abstract class for an existing deployed contract

[manosamy]

An existing contract used solidity 0.4.4 and has a constant function that qualifies as pure based on current language standards.
If I build an abstract contract that will be used to access the previously deployed contract, should I specify it as public pure or just public view?

existing one deployed in mainnet before byzantium:
pragma solidity ^0.4.4;
function namehash(string name) public constant returns(bytes32) {
...
}

new abstract class to access that:
pragma solidity ^0.4.17;
function namehash(string name) public pure returns(bytes32);

Is that correct usage? Or, should I stick to public view?

[chriseth]

@manosamy you can change the "pureness" - it has no effect on the bytecode, but you can also keep it as view. Whatever you do, if you use an interface and a derived contract, their pureness has to match.

[axic]

The inheritance aspect of this is handled in #3729.