RFC, ensureHeaped

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Tuesday 16 November 2010 12:37:10 bearophile wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis:
> > Pure is hard enough to deal with (especially since it we probably have
> > made it the default, but it's too late for that now).
> 
> Weakly pure on default isn't good for a language that is supposed to b e
> somewhat compatible with C syntax, I think it breaks too many C functions.

Well, like I said, it's too late at this point, and really, it would be good to 
have a nice way to deal with C functions and purity (particularly since most of 
them are pure anyway), but the result at present is that most functions should 
be marked with pure. And if you're marking more functions with pure than not, 
that would imply that the default should be (at least ideally) impure. 
Regardless, however, it's not reasonable for D to go for impure rather than pure 
at this point.

- Jonathan M Davis