Counter-Proposal: restrict & tagged functions

[Piotr Szturmaj]

Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> On 01-Sep-12 17:01, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>> On Saturday, 1 September 2012 at 12:39:41 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>>> I'd say
>>> @nogc:
>>> at the top and deal is sealed.
>>
>> BTW don't forget a @yesgc would be good to counter it. We need
>> a way to turn off each attribute to use this pattern best.
>
> What I see with this @nogc proposal is that that problem it tries to
> solve (and tool used to do so) is far more interesting and general.
>
> Namely the problem is to specify that some functions can call only
> specific subset of functions and able to use only specific subset of
> language features. It's more far reaching then just gc, one may want to
> get @noblocking  or @async attribute to statically check e.g. that GUI
> thread can't ever block.
> (it would however require to identify API calls that don't block, not
> possible on every OS, might entail some wrappers etc. but is very
> desirable)

[snip]

> The idea in a nutshell:

[snip]

How the attribute inferring works in this proposal?