[phobos] Pureness of enforce()

[Robert Jacques]

On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 11:34:57 -0500, Don Clugston  
<dclugston at googlemail.com> wrote:

> On 9 November 2010 16:15, Robert Jacques <sandford at jhu.edu> wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 06:21:38 -0500, Lars Tandle Kyllingstad
>> <lars at kyllingen.net> wrote:
>>>  It is not possible to annotate
>>> enforce() with 'pure', however, because it takes a lazy parameter,  
>>> which
>>> is just shorthand for a (possibly impure) delegate.
>
>> Well, long term, we need modifiers to apply to delegates. i.e. it  
>> should be
>> possible to declare a pure delegate.
>
> You can already do that.
>
> int delegate(int x, int y) pure @safe foo;

Cool. I love being out of date. :) Although, some syntactic sugar (or  
auto-magical detection) for the pure delegate literal would be nice, as  
'delegate() @safe pure{return 5;}' is a lot more clunky than '(){return  
5;}' or the just '5' if the function takes an 'int delegate() pure @safe  
foo[]...'