Proposal: Relax rules for 'pure'

[Gary Whatmore]

Simen kjaeraas Wrote:

> Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Would it not be less tedious to mark unpure functions instead of pure  
> > functions?  Or am I just going too far with this?
> 
> You're probably going too far for it to be included in D2. D:
> 
> That said, I believe you are absolutely right, and what you're saying
> is the right thing to do.
> 
> UP VOTES!!1

We could use these proposals as a base for D 2.5 or D 3.0. Now that a better purity/constness system seems to solve problems more easily, D 2.0 seems too limited for modern systems programming. Is it finally time to put D 1.0 to rest, D 2.0 in maintenance mode, and concentrate on D 3? The TDPL book was finally published and D 2.0 has been in bugfix mode for a while. Once we have a 64-bit compiler ready, it would be time to move on.