[Issue 6415] Placement of pure and nothrow for invariant()

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6415 Walter Bright bugzi...@digitalmars.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 6415] Placement of pure and nothrow for invariant()

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6415 brian-sch...@cox.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC||brian-sch...@cox.net ---

[Issue 6415] Placement of pure and nothrow for invariant()

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6415 --- Comment #5 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2013-06-10 14:39:42 PDT --- (In reply to comment #3) After all, as Kenji mentioned, the () is to support old code and will eventually go away anyway. OK. dmd 2.064 is a good moment for that

[Issue 6415] Placement of pure and nothrow for invariant()

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6415 bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|

[Issue 6415] Placement of pure and nothrow for invariant()

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6415 Henning Pohl henn...@still-hidden.de changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||pull

[Issue 6415] Placement of pure and nothrow for invariant()

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6415 --- Comment #2 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com 2013-06-09 18:19:12 PDT --- (In reply to comment #0) This code shows a problem with placement of pure and nothrow: class Foo { pure nothrow invariant() {} // OK invariant() pure