Uh... destructors?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 2/23/11 11:16 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:01:15 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2/23/11 10:52 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> Why? We have both attributes, why not just require "@safe pure" if you
>>> want @safe pure functions?
>>>
>>
>> Because a pure unsafe function is useless.
>
> Just because a function is not marked @safe does not mean it is unsafe.
> It just means you can do things the compiler cannot verify are safe, but
> that you know are actually safe. I showed you earlier an example of a
> safe pure function that uses malloc and free.
>
> Programmers are allowed to make conceptually safe functions which are
> not marked as @safe, why not the same for pure functions?
>
> -Steve

I understand that. My point is that allowing unsafe functions to be pure 
dilutes pure to the point of uselessness.

Andrei