On 06/22/14 08:26, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d wrote: > I would point out that if we do this, we should serious consider renaming pure > to @noglobal rather than @pure, or even making it the default and then adding > @global. That would make it so that we wouldn't have to keep explaining about > how pure has very little to do with functional purity.
1) "@noglobal" is probably not the best name; unfortunately I can't think of a good one... 2) Making it the default, when there are no safe escape hatches, would make things worse. You'd often end up having to go back and add '@global' annotations to the whole call stack, once it turns out to be necessary to use some D-impure code. Which can affect already published APIs etc. artur