[Issue 1472] Be more clever about detecting assigment to non-l-values

[BCS]

Reply to d-bugmail at puremagic.com,

> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1472
> 
> ------- Comment #2 from wbaxter at gmail.com  2007-09-04 19:24 -------
> That may be.  That's why it's just an enhancement request.   But it
> seems like
> 2.0 is already going to have to do a lot of checking for side effects
> in order
> to implement pure functions so it doesn't seem like such a stretch to
> me.

I see your point.

However I think it's unlikely to happen because with pure functions, it is 
all a semantic issue (the valid syntax for the use of a function is not depended 
on if it is pure), for what you proposed the allowed syntax would be different 
depending on a semantic distinction.