Uh... destructors?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 2/23/11 11:47 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> 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.

Fine, I agree. If I'll have better arguments in the future, I'll bring 
them up here.

Andrei