Uh... destructors?

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:01:15 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:

> On 2/23/11 10:52 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> Why? We have both attributes, why not just require "@safe pure" if you
>> want @safe pure functions?
>>
>
> Because a pure unsafe function is useless.

Just because a function is not marked @safe does not mean it is unsafe.   
It just means you can do things the compiler cannot verify are safe, but  
that you know are actually safe.  I showed you earlier an example of a  
safe pure function that uses malloc and free.

Programmers are allowed to make conceptually safe functions which are not  
marked as @safe, why not the same for pure functions?

-Steve