dip1000 + pure is a DEADLY COMBO

[12345swordy]

On Wednesday, 12 May 2021 at 15:47:24 UTC, Dennis wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 May 2021 at 14:58:23 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
>> Should it be a bug with Pure rather than dip1000?
>
> Purity is inferred correctly. The problem is that function 
> parameters get the `scope` storage class for free when the 
> function is strongly pure. In any case, I don't think it makes 
> a difference whether you call it a "bug with pure" or a "bug 
> with dip1000".


Can phobos be rewritten, such that it doesn't depend on the bug?

-Alex