The "no gc" crowd

[ixid]

On Tuesday, 8 October 2013 at 22:37:28 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 10/8/2013 9:22 AM, Dicebot wrote:
>> It is simply "@nogc" which is lacking but absolutely
>> mandatory.
>
> Adding @nogc is fairly simple. The trouble, though, is (like 
> purity) it is transitive. Every function an @nogc function 
> calls will also have to be @nogc. This will entail a great deal 
> of work updating phobos/druntime to add those annotations.

A very naive question but is there no way of analysing the 
subfunctions to check their purity or lack of GC use rather than 
having to annotate everything? D does need to be a little wary of 
becoming too heavily annotated.