On 28 September 2014 22:21, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On 9/27/14, 7:42 PM, Manu via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>
>> void f() pure nothrow @nogc
>> {
>> void localFunc()
>> {
>> }
>>
>> localFunc();
>> }
>>
>> Complains because localFunc is not @nogc or nothrow.
>> Doesn't complain about pure though.
>>
>> Is it reasonable to say that the scope of the outer function is
>> nothrow+@nogc, and therefore everything declared within should also be
>> so?
>
>
> Interesting. I'd guess probably not, e.g. a function may define a static
> local function and return its address (without either throwing or creating
> garbage), whereas that local function itself may do whatever it pleases.
>
> However, local functions have their body available by definition so they
> should have all deducible attributes deducted. That should take care of the
> problem.
>
>
> Andrei
>
> P.S. I also notice that my latest attempt at establishing communication has
> remained ignored.
I was out of town (was on my phone), and now I'm home with 2 guests,
and we're working together. I can't sit and craft a pile of example
cases until I'm alone and have time to do so. I haven't ignored it,
but I need to find the time to give you what you want.
That said, my friend encountered one of my frequently recurring pain
cases himself yesterday:
struct S(T...)
{
void f(T args) {}
}
S!(int, ref S) fail; // <-- no clean way to do this. I need this very
frequently, and he reached for it too, so I can't be that weird.
