Uh... destructors?

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:28:33 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:

> On 2/23/11 11:16 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

>> 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.

And that's not a point.  It's an unsupported opinion.

pure has nothing to do with safety, it has to do with optimization.  Safe  
functions are no more optimizable than unsafe ones.  Safety has to do with  
reducing memory bugs.

The two concepts are orthogonal, I have not been convinced otherwise.

-Steve