Is anyone hacking on druntime in a widespread fashion at themoment?

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Kevin Cox" <kevincox.ca at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.1599.1334099575.4860.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>
>I was wondering why they could not be implied from the code itself.

That question comes up a lot. The thing is, that would completely defeat the 
point. The point is that you want the compiler to *guarantee* that certain 
specific functions are pure/@safe/const/nothrow, etc.

If you make a change that prevents a function from being 
pure/@safe/const/nothrow, and the compiler just simply accepted it and 
internally considered it non-pure/non-whatever, then you haven't gained 
anything at all. It'd be no different from not even having any 
pure/@safe/const/nothrow system in the first place. At *best* it would just 
be a few optimizations here and there.

But if the compiler tells you, "Hey, you said you wanted this function to be 
pure/whatever, but you're doing X which prevents that", then you can 
actually *fix* the problem and go make it pure/whatever.