"Kevin Cox" <kevincox...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.1599.1334099575.4860.digitalmar...@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.
