On 9/12/22 09:48, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> @nogc nothrow pure @safe
>> unittest
>> {
>> // ...
>> }
>>
>> No, it isn't because unless my unittest code is impure, I can't catch
>> my incorrect 'pure' etc. on my member functions.
> [...]
>
> Sure you can. The `pure unittest` code obviously must itself be pure
> (otherwise it wouldn't compile). If Foo introduces impure behaviour,
> then the unittest, being pure, wouldn't be allowed to call Foo's impure
> methods, which is what we want. What's the problem?
There was a problem until you and others put me straigth. :)
What I meant was
- if I put 'pure' etc. on my templatized code,
- and then tested with a 'pure' unittest,
I wouldn't know that the gratuitous use of my 'pure' on the member
function was wrong. I would be fooling myself thinking that I smartly
wrote a 'pure' member function and a 'pure' unittest and all worked.
Wrong idea! :)
Now I know I must leave attributes as much to inference as possible.
Ali
