Re: @safe, pure and nothrow at the beginning of a module
If I understand correctly Adam Ruppe's Cookbook, by putting @safe: pure: nothrow: at the beginning of a module, I distribute it on all definitions, right? Even methods, inner classes, and so on? I read Adam's book again and I was wrong: Chapter 7, p. 173: You may add @safe: to the top of your module and aggregate definitions to apply the annotation to all function that follows, instead of writing it on each individual function. So, first, he's talking only about @safe (though I suppose it works the same for all annotations) and he says: *and aggregate definitions*. We indeed need to put annotations inside aggregates to affect their innards. If that's true, I have a lot of annotation sprinkling to do.
Re: @safe, pure and nothrow at the beginning of a module
On 08/16/14 13:18, Philippe Sigaud via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: We indeed need to put annotations inside aggregates to affect their innards. If that's true, I have a lot of annotation sprinkling to do. It's not true for @safe, but true for some other attributes. http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.125.1397731134.2763.digitalmar...@puremagic.com artur
Re: @safe, pure and nothrow at the beginning of a module
On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote: On 08/16/14 13:18, Philippe Sigaud via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: We indeed need to put annotations inside aggregates to affect their innards. If that's true, I have a lot of annotation sprinkling to do. It's not true for @safe, but true for some other attributes. http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.125.1397731134.2763.digitalmar...@puremagic.com Okay... So @safe includes child scopes. I suppose @trusted and @system work in the same way. *but* nothrow, @nogc and UDA's do not include child scopes. Putting them at the beginning of a module will not affect methods in aggregates... What's the situation for pure? (I don't have a D compiler handy right now, or I would test it myself).
Re: @safe, pure and nothrow at the beginning of a module
On 08/16/14 13:58, Philippe Sigaud via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d-learn http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.125.1397731134.2763.digitalmar...@puremagic.com Okay... So @safe includes child scopes. I suppose @trusted and @system work in the same way. *but* nothrow, @nogc and UDA's do not include child scopes. Putting them at the beginning of a module will not affect methods in aggregates... What's the situation for pure? (I don't have a D compiler handy right now, or I would test it myself). @safe, @trusted, @system, shared, immutable, const, inout and `extern (...)` affect child scopes. `synchronized` does too, but in a rather unintuitive way; hopefully nobody uses this. ;) Other attributes, including 'pure' and 'nothrow' only affect symbols in the current scope. artur
Re: @safe, pure and nothrow at the beginning of a module
Artur: @safe, @trusted, @system, shared, immutable, const, inout and `extern (...)` affect child scopes. `synchronized` does too, but in a rather unintuitive way; hopefully nobody uses this. ;) Well, I also hope no one uses inout: at the module level? Other attributes, including 'pure' and 'nothrow' only affect symbols in the current scope. There we are. Good to know, thanks.
Re: @safe, pure and nothrow at the beginning of a module
On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 14:39:00 +0200 Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote: On 08/16/14 13:58, Philippe Sigaud via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d-learn http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.125.1397731134.2763.digitalmar...@puremagic.com Okay... So @safe includes child scopes. I suppose @trusted and @system work in the same way. *but* nothrow, @nogc and UDA's do not include child scopes. Putting them at the beginning of a module will not affect methods in aggregates... What's the situation for pure? (I don't have a D compiler handy right now, or I would test it myself). @safe, @trusted, @system, shared, immutable, const, inout and `extern (...)` affect child scopes. `synchronized` does too, but in a rather unintuitive way; hopefully nobody uses this. ;) Other attributes, including 'pure' and 'nothrow' only affect symbols in the current scope. It sounds like a bug to me if they're not consistent. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: @safe, pure and nothrow at the beginning of a module
On Saturday, 16 August 2014 at 19:30:16 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 14:39:00 +0200 Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote: On 08/16/14 13:58, Philippe Sigaud via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d-learn http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.125.1397731134.2763.digitalmar...@puremagic.com Okay... So @safe includes child scopes. I suppose @trusted and @system work in the same way. *but* nothrow, @nogc and UDA's do not include child scopes. Putting them at the beginning of a module will not affect methods in aggregates... What's the situation for pure? (I don't have a D compiler handy right now, or I would test it myself). @safe, @trusted, @system, shared, immutable, const, inout and `extern (...)` affect child scopes. `synchronized` does too, but in a rather unintuitive way; hopefully nobody uses this. ;) Other attributes, including 'pure' and 'nothrow' only affect symbols in the current scope. It sounds like a bug to me if they're not consistent. - Jonathan M Davis Well, you got @system to override @safe, but no @impure or @throws. So the behavior can kind of make sense in a way. Maybe.
Re: @safe, pure and nothrow at the beginning of a module
On Saturday, 16 August 2014 at 20:48:25 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote: On Saturday, 16 August 2014 at 19:30:16 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 14:39:00 +0200 Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote: @safe, @trusted, @system, shared, immutable, const, inout and `extern (...)` affect child scopes. `synchronized` does too, but in a rather unintuitive way; hopefully nobody uses this. ;) Other attributes, including 'pure' and 'nothrow' only affect symbols in the current scope. It sounds like a bug to me if they're not consistent. - Jonathan M Davis Well, you got @system to override @safe, but no @impure or @throws. So the behavior can kind of make sense in a way. Maybe. Except that attributes like const, immutable, shared, and inout can't be reversed either (in fact @system, @trusted, and @safe - and maybe extern - are the only ones from that list that can be, so while I could see making that separation, that's not what's actually happening. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: @safe, pure and nothrow at the beginning of a module
On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 20:48:23 + monarch_dodra via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com wrote: Well, you got @system to override @safe, but no @impure or @throws. So the behavior can kind of make sense in a way. Maybe. talking about attributes. the unability to reverse 'final:' makes me mad. i'm almost ready to patch the compiler myself and start using this feature even if it will be never accepted in mainline, like i'm doing now with 'foreach (auto i; ...)'. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
@safe, pure and nothrow at the beginning of a module
So I'm trying to use @safe, pure and nothrow. If I understand correctly Adam Ruppe's Cookbook, by putting @safe: pure: nothrow: at the beginning of a module, I distribute it on all definitions, right? Even methods, inner classes, and so on? Because I did just that on half a dozen of modules and the compiler did not complain. Does that mean my code is clean(?) or that what I did has no effect?
Re: @safe, pure and nothrow at the beginning of a module
On Friday, 15 August 2014 at 16:54:54 UTC, Philippe Sigaud wrote: So I'm trying to use @safe, pure and nothrow. If I understand correctly Adam Ruppe's Cookbook, by putting @safe: pure: nothrow: at the beginning of a module, I distribute it on all definitions, right? Even methods, inner classes, and so on? Because I did just that on half a dozen of modules and the compiler did not complain. Does that mean my code is clean(?) or that what I did has no effect? Hmmm... It _should_ apply to everything, but maybe it only applies to the outer-level declarations. Certainly, in most cases, I'd be surprised if marking everything in a module with those attributes would work on the first go. It's _possible_, depending on what you're doing, but in my experience, odds are that you're doing _something_ that violates one or all of those in several places. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: @safe, pure and nothrow at the beginning of a module
In another module I marked as '@safe:' at the top, the compiler told me that a class opEquals could not be @safe (because Object.opEquals is @system). So it seems that indeed a module-level '@safe:' affects everything, since a class method was found lacking. (I put a @trusted attribute on it).
Re: @safe, pure and nothrow at the beginning of a module
On Friday, 15 August 2014 at 16:54:54 UTC, Philippe Sigaud wrote: So I'm trying to use @safe, pure and nothrow. If I understand correctly Adam Ruppe's Cookbook, by putting @safe: pure: nothrow: at the beginning of a module, I distribute it on all definitions, right? Even methods, inner classes, and so on? Because I did just that on half a dozen of modules and the compiler did not complain. Does that mean my code is clean(?) or that what I did has no effect? I've noticed the same thing. If I want pure and nothrow to propage to inner structs and classes I have to place another label inside the class definition. Otherwise only free functions are affected.
Re: @safe, pure and nothrow at the beginning of a module
On Friday, 15 August 2014 at 23:22:27 UTC, Vlad Levenfeld wrote: On Friday, 15 August 2014 at 16:54:54 UTC, Philippe Sigaud wrote: So I'm trying to use @safe, pure and nothrow. If I understand correctly Adam Ruppe's Cookbook, by putting @safe: pure: nothrow: at the beginning of a module, I distribute it on all definitions, right? Even methods, inner classes, and so on? Because I did just that on half a dozen of modules and the compiler did not complain. Does that mean my code is clean(?) or that what I did has no effect? I've noticed the same thing. If I want pure and nothrow to propage to inner structs and classes I have to place another label inside the class definition. Otherwise only free functions are affected. I had a similar experience when trying to use @nogc. Having to insert @nogc into every struct I use is mildly annoying.
