* Nick Sabalausky <seewebsitetocontac...@semitwist.com> [2012-04-11 16:08:05 -0400]: > "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. > >
At any rate, inference would probably end up being more trouble than its worth, or as you said, useless. Me: "I know this function can throw" Compiler: "But I don't think so, so I'm gonna mark it nothrow" Me: "No! You idiot!" Compiler: "Herp-Derp, code-breaking optimization based on incorrect assumptions" Me: "FUUUUUUUUUU...." I don't trust computers, I've spent too long programming to think that they can get anything right. -- James Miller