Proposal: Relax rules for 'pure'

[Justin Johansson]

On 23/09/2010 10:36 PM, Gary Whatmore wrote:
> 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.

Agreed. D 1.0 was a stem cell.  D 2.0 was part organ.  Time is of the
essence to evolve to a transplant-able product.