Is anyone hacking on druntime in a widespread fashion at themoment?

[Kevin Cox]

On Apr 11, 2012 4:14 PM, "Nick Sabalausky" <
SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com> wrote:
>
> "Kevin Cox" <kevincox.ca at gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mailman.1599.1334099575.4860.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
> >
> >I was wondering why they could not be implied from the code itself.
>
> That question comes up a lot. The thing is, that would completely defeat
the
> point. The point is that you want the compiler to *guarantee* that certain
> specific functions are pure/@safe/const/nothrow, etc.
>
> If you make a change that prevents a function from being
> pure/@safe/const/nothrow, and the compiler just simply accepted it and
> internally considered it non-pure/non-whatever, then you haven't gained
> anything at all. It'd be no different from not even having any
> pure/@safe/const/nothrow system in the first place. At *best* it would
just
> be a few optimizations here and there.
>
> But if the compiler tells you, "Hey, you said you wanted this function to
be
> pure/whatever, but you're doing X which prevents that", then you can
> actually *fix* the problem and go make it pure/whatever.
>

Makes sense.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20120411/f2cd3e40/attachment.html>