[dmd-internals] Changes for pure, nothrow, and @safe done for the moment?

[Jonathan M Davis]

On 2011-06-26 20:34, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 6/26/2011 8:09 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Walter, are the changes that you've been making to pure, nothrow, and
> > @safe in dmd essentially done for the moment? Or are there still more to
> > come? They've reaked some level of havoc with Phobos (for better or
> > worse), and so assuming that all of the changes that you've made are
> > valid, some changes are going to need to be made to Phobos so that the
> > unit tests will compile again, but I don't see much point in trying to
> > sort any of that out if you're still in the middle of making big
> > changes.
> > 
> > Regardless, I'm particularly stumped by the errors in std.concurrency. It
> > seems like the combination of purity and nothrow inference and making the
> > compiler complain about calling pure nothrow functions without using the
> > result is breaking it (certainly, I don't see any pure nothrow functions
> > in there anywhere, so I have no idea how else it could be complaining
> > about pure nothrow functions having no effect). So, I don't know if
> > that's a compiler issue or an issue with std.concurrency. But I don't
> > want to try and fix anything yet if you're still making big changes.
> 
> I'm going to just back out the warning about pure functions with no effect.

Okay. Fine with me. It would be kind of nice to know what on earth is going on 
with std.concurrency though, since in theory, warning about pure functions 
with no effect would be a good thing. But I don't even know how it has a pure 
function with no effect to complain about.

- Jonathan M Davis