https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22221
--- Comment #8 from Dennis <dkor...@live.nl> --- (In reply to Atila Neves from comment #7) > > The compiler thinks "`scope` inference failed > > On a non templated function? I assume a function with attribute inference here, but it's the same without inference. The point is: the language doesn't define `pure` to imply `scope` in any way, neither is this expected behavior. > With a comment on enforce. It's not ideal, but I think it's better than the > current situation. What about attribute inference becoming intractable like I mentioned? > > If you want to mark the function as "pure but don't scope my params", then > > mark it > `pure` and add `scope` to the parameters. > > That doesn't make any sense to me. What we want is to rely on inference as > much as possible instead of explicit `scope` on parameters. I meant "mark it `pure` and *don't* add `scope` parameters". The point here is: non-scope is the default, there's no need for a `nonscope` keyword or workaround when you don't introduce a special case where `scope` becomes the default. --
