• Nick Sabalausky (2/2) Feb 08 2014 Is there some way to poke enough of a hole in "pure" to get some writeln...
• Adam D. Ruppe (5/7) Feb 08 2014 literally write
• Nick Sabalausky (4/10) Feb 08 2014 Nice!
• Adam D. Ruppe (5/7) Feb 08 2014 The debug statement specifically (which is only compiled in when
• Jesse Phillips (4/18) Feb 09 2014 It is a compiler benefit.
• Daniel Murphy (11/13) Feb 10 2014 I just travelled back in time and granted your wish!
• Jesse Phillips (4/17) Feb 11 2014 I guess I wasn't clear, when I compile with -debug I should be

Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:

Is there some way to poke enough of a hole in "pure" to get some writeln 
debugging statements in?

"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:

On Saturday, 8 February 2014 at 22:27:39 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
wrote:
 Is there some way to poke enough of a hole in "pure" to get 
 some writeln debugging statements in?

literally write
debug writeln(..)

abnd it should work in the pure function

Nick Sabalausky <SeeWebsiteToContactMe semitwist.com> writes:

On 2/8/2014 5:30 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
 On Saturday, 8 February 2014 at 22:27:39 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 Is there some way to poke enough of a hole in "pure" to get some
 writeln debugging statements in?

 literally write
 debug writeln(..)

 abnd it should work in the pure function

Nice!

So I take it purity enforcement is disabled with the -debug flag? Or is 
it some sort of hack with writeln?

"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:

On Sunday, 9 February 2014 at 00:18:28 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 So I take it purity enforcement is disabled with the -debug 
 flag? Or is it some sort of hack with writeln?

The debug statement specifically (which is only compiled in when 
you use the -debug flag).

debug foo(); will work in a pure function, even if foo is not 
pure.

"Jesse Phillips" <Jesse.K.Phillips+D gmail.com> writes:

On Sunday, 9 February 2014 at 00:18:28 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 On 2/8/2014 5:30 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
 On Saturday, 8 February 2014 at 22:27:39 UTC, Nick Sabalausky 
 wrote:
 Is there some way to poke enough of a hole in "pure" to get 
 some
 writeln debugging statements in?

 literally write
 debug writeln(..)

 abnd it should work in the pure function

 Nice!

 So I take it purity enforcement is disabled with the -debug 
 flag? Or is it some sort of hack with writeln?

It is a compiler benefit.

Wish it would work with  safe and nothrow too, granted writeln 
should eventually be  safe/trusted anyway.

"Daniel Murphy" <yebbliesnospam gmail.com> writes:

"Jesse Phillips"  wrote in message 
news:vaatltklsmbmdnabojip forum.dlang.org...

 Wish it would work with  safe and nothrow too, granted writeln should 
 eventually be  safe/trusted anyway.

I just travelled back in time and granted your wish!


int x;
int* p;

void main() pure nothrow  safe
{
    debug x = 3;
    debug throw new Exception(null);
    debug *(p+7) = 2;
} 

"Jesse Phillips" <Jesse.K.Phillips+D gmail.com> writes:

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 at 07:52:57 UTC, Daniel Murphy wrote:
 "Jesse Phillips"  wrote in message 
 news:vaatltklsmbmdnabojip forum.dlang.org...

 Wish it would work with  safe and nothrow too, granted writeln 
 should eventually be  safe/trusted anyway.

 I just travelled back in time and granted your wish!


 int x;
 int* p;

 void main() pure nothrow  safe
 {
    debug x = 3;
    debug throw new Exception(null);
    debug *(p+7) = 2;
 }

I guess I wasn't clear, when I compile with -debug I should be 
able to use writeln in an  safe/nothrow function just as it is 
with pure.