On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 10:08:29AM -0700, Ali Çehreli via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: [...] > 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! :)
That's an easy one: write a unittest where you instantiate Foo with a deliberately-impure type (e.g., .front references some local variable in the unittest outside the aggregate). If there was a gratuitous `pure` in Foo, this will fail to compile. T -- "I'm running Windows '98." "Yes." "My computer isn't working now." "Yes, you already said that." -- User-Friendly
