The "no gc" crowd

[Adam D. Ruppe]

On Wednesday, 9 October 2013 at 08:05:30 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> I'm hesitant about stuff that computes function summaries such 
> as __traits(getFunctionsCalled, function) without allowing 
> those summaries to make it into the function's signature or 
> attributes. It makes separate compilation difficult.

That's the verification of the attribute. You can still attach 
the attribute to a prototype without a body for separate 
compiliation (this is the same as @safe - the prototype could be 
lying and the compiler can't verify, but you trust the annotation 
is correct).

The advantage __traits(getFunctionsCalled) has over a built-in 
@nogc is simply that we can define it all in the library, and add 
more, combine ones*, etc., without changing the language again.

* A library uda could be defined to check @everything || @nogc or 
whatever, since it is ultimately implemented as a static assert 
which can do it all too.