On 2/23/11 11:47 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:28:33 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
On 2/23/11 11:16 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
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
I understand that. My point is that allowing unsafe functions to be
pure dilutes pure to the point of uselessness.
And that's not a point. It's an unsupported opinion.
Fine, I agree. If I'll have better arguments in the future, I'll bring
them up here.
Andrei
