<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 16.11.2011 15:35, Steve Schveighoffer wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:1321454145.6829.YahooMailNeo@web161702.mail.bf1.yahoo.com"
type="cite">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255); font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;">
<div><span>Take this argument with a grain of salt, I have very
little internal dmd knowledge. But...</span></div>
<div><br>
<span></span></div>
<div><span>Isn't deduction of pure/nothrow/safe restricted to
templates? Don't templates *require* availability of
source?</span></div>
<div><br>
<span></span></div>
<div><span>Just saying...</span></div>
<div><br>
<span></span></div>
<div><span>-Steve<br>
</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think it would be an unexpected restricton to limit
pure/nothrow/safe inference to templates. But if it is not, using di
files instead of d files will break code because inference very much
depends on whether the di-file generation emitted the code or not.
Adding inferred attributes to the function declarations could help
but it currently changes the name mangling, breaking it again.<br>
</body>
</html>