• Philippe Sigaud (10/10) Aug 15 2014 So I'm trying to use @safe, pure and nothrow.
• Jonathan M Davis (9/19) Aug 15 2014 Hmmm... It _should_ apply to everything, but maybe it only
• Philippe Sigaud via Digitalmars-d-learn (6/6) Aug 15 2014 In another module I marked as '@safe:' at the top, the compiler told
• Vlad Levenfeld (5/15) Aug 15 2014 I've noticed the same thing. If I want pure and nothrow to
• Philpax (3/23) Aug 15 2014 I had a similar experience when trying to use @nogc. Having to
• Philippe Sigaud via Digitalmars-d-learn (10/18) Aug 16 2014 I read Adam's book again and I was wrong:
• Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d-learn (4/8) Aug 16 2014 It's not true for @safe, but true for some other attributes.
• Philippe Sigaud via Digitalmars-d-learn (10/17) Aug 16 2014 Okay...
• Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d-learn (7/22) Aug 16 2014 @safe, @trusted, @system, shared, immutable, const, inout and `extern (....
• Philippe Sigaud via Digitalmars-d-learn (3/8) Aug 16 2014 There we are. Good to know, thanks.
• Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn (5/28) Aug 16 2014 On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 14:39:00 +0200
• monarch_dodra (4/42) Aug 16 2014 Well, you got @system to override @safe, but no @impure or
• Jonathan M Davis (7/27) Aug 16 2014 Except that attributes like const, immutable, shared, and inout
• ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn (7/9) Aug 16 2014 On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 20:48:23 +0000

"Philippe Sigaud" <philippe.sigaud gmail.com> writes:

So I'm trying to use  safe, pure and nothrow.

If I understand correctly Adam Ruppe's Cookbook, by putting

 safe:
pure:
nothrow:

at the beginning of a module, I distribute it on all definitions, 
right? Even methods, inner classes, and so on?

Because I did just that on half a dozen of modules and the 
compiler did not complain. Does that mean my code is clean(?) or 
that what I did has no effect?

"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:

On Friday, 15 August 2014 at 16:54:54 UTC, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
 So I'm trying to use  safe, pure and nothrow.

 If I understand correctly Adam Ruppe's Cookbook, by putting

  safe:
 pure:
 nothrow:

 at the beginning of a module, I distribute it on all 
 definitions, right? Even methods, inner classes, and so on?

 Because I did just that on half a dozen of modules and the 
 compiler did not complain. Does that mean my code is clean(?) 
 or that what I did has no effect?

Hmmm... It _should_ apply to everything, but maybe it only 
applies to the outer-level declarations. Certainly, in most 
cases, I'd be surprised if marking everything in a module with 
those attributes would work on the first go. It's _possible_, 
depending on what you're doing, but in my experience, odds are 
that you're doing _something_ that violates one or all of those 
in several places.

- Jonathan M Davis

Philippe Sigaud via Digitalmars-d-learn writes:

In another module I marked as ' safe:' at the top, the compiler told
me that a class opEquals could not be  safe (because Object.opEquals
is  system).

So it seems that indeed a module-level ' safe:' affects everything,
since a class method was found lacking.

(I put a  trusted attribute on it).

"Vlad Levenfeld" <vlevenfeld gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 15 August 2014 at 16:54:54 UTC, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
 So I'm trying to use  safe, pure and nothrow.

 If I understand correctly Adam Ruppe's Cookbook, by putting

  safe:
 pure:
 nothrow:

 at the beginning of a module, I distribute it on all 
 definitions, right? Even methods, inner classes, and so on?

 Because I did just that on half a dozen of modules and the 
 compiler did not complain. Does that mean my code is clean(?) 
 or that what I did has no effect?

I've noticed the same thing. If I want pure and nothrow to 
propage to inner structs and classes I have to place another 
label inside the class definition. Otherwise only free functions 
are affected.

"Philpax" <phillip philliplarkson.com> writes:

On Friday, 15 August 2014 at 23:22:27 UTC, Vlad Levenfeld wrote:
 On Friday, 15 August 2014 at 16:54:54 UTC, Philippe Sigaud 
 wrote:
 So I'm trying to use  safe, pure and nothrow.

 If I understand correctly Adam Ruppe's Cookbook, by putting

  safe:
 pure:
 nothrow:

 at the beginning of a module, I distribute it on all 
 definitions, right? Even methods, inner classes, and so on?

 Because I did just that on half a dozen of modules and the 
 compiler did not complain. Does that mean my code is clean(?) 
 or that what I did has no effect?

 I've noticed the same thing. If I want pure and nothrow to 
 propage to inner structs and classes I have to place another 
 label inside the class definition. Otherwise only free 
 functions are affected.

I had a similar experience when trying to use  nogc. Having to 
insert  nogc into every struct I use is mildly annoying.

Philippe Sigaud via Digitalmars-d-learn writes:

 If I understand correctly Adam Ruppe's Cookbook, by putting

  safe:
 pure:
 nothrow:

 at the beginning of a module, I distribute it on all definitions, right?
 Even methods, inner classes, and so on?



I read Adam's book again and I was wrong:

Chapter 7, p. 173:

"You may add  safe: to the top of your module and aggregate
definitions to apply the annotation to all function that follows,
instead of writing it on each individual function."

So, first, he's talking only about  safe (though I suppose it works
the same for all annotations) and he says: *and aggregate
definitions*. We indeed need to put annotations inside aggregates to
affect their innards.

If that's true, I have a lot of annotation sprinkling to do.

Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d-learn <digitalmars-d-learn puremagic.com> writes:

On 08/16/14 13:18, Philippe Sigaud via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
 We indeed need to put annotations inside aggregates to
 affect their innards.
 
 If that's true, I have a lot of annotation sprinkling to do.

It's not true for  safe, but true for some other attributes.

http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.125.1397731134.2763.digitalmars-d puremagic.com

artur

Philippe Sigaud via Digitalmars-d-learn writes:

On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d-learn
<digitalmars-d-learn puremagic.com> wrote:
 On 08/16/14 13:18, Philippe Sigaud via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
 We indeed need to put annotations inside aggregates to
 affect their innards.

 If that's true, I have a lot of annotation sprinkling to do.

 It's not true for  safe, but true for some other attributes.

 http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.125.1397731134.2763.digitalmars-d puremagic.com

Okay...

So  safe includes child scopes. I suppose  trusted and  system work in
the same way.

*but*

nothrow,  nogc and UDA's do not include child scopes. Putting them at
the beginning of a module will not affect methods in aggregates...

What's the situation for pure? (I don't have a D compiler handy right
now, or I would test it myself).

Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d-learn <digitalmars-d-learn puremagic.com> writes:

On 08/16/14 13:58, Philippe Sigaud via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
 On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d-learn

 http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.125.1397731134.2763.digitalmars-d puremagic.com

 
 Okay...
 
 So  safe includes child scopes. I suppose  trusted and  system work in
 the same way.
 
 *but*
 
 nothrow,  nogc and UDA's do not include child scopes. Putting them at
 the beginning of a module will not affect methods in aggregates...
 
 What's the situation for pure? (I don't have a D compiler handy right
 now, or I would test it myself).

 safe,  trusted,  system, shared, immutable, const, inout and `extern (...)`
affect child scopes. `synchronized` does too, but in a rather unintuitive
way; hopefully nobody uses this. ;)

Other attributes, including 'pure' and 'nothrow' only affect symbols
in the current scope.

artur

Philippe Sigaud via Digitalmars-d-learn writes:

Artur:
  safe,  trusted,  system, shared, immutable, const, inout and `extern (...)`
 affect child scopes. `synchronized` does too, but in a rather unintuitive
 way; hopefully nobody uses this. ;)

Well, I also hope no one uses inout: at the module level?

 Other attributes, including 'pure' and 'nothrow' only affect symbols
 in the current scope.

There we are. Good to know, thanks.

Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-learn writes:

On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 14:39:00 +0200
Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d-learn
<digitalmars-d-learn puremagic.com> wrote:

 On 08/16/14 13:58, Philippe Sigaud via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
 On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Artur Skawina via
 Digitalmars-d-learn

 http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.125.1397731134.2763.digitalmars-d puremagic.com

 Okay...

 So  safe includes child scopes. I suppose  trusted and  system work
 in the same way.

 *but*

 nothrow,  nogc and UDA's do not include child scopes. Putting them
 at the beginning of a module will not affect methods in
 aggregates...

 What's the situation for pure? (I don't have a D compiler handy
 right now, or I would test it myself).

  safe,  trusted,  system, shared, immutable, const, inout and `extern
 (...)` affect child scopes. `synchronized` does too, but in a rather
 unintuitive way; hopefully nobody uses this. ;)

 Other attributes, including 'pure' and 'nothrow' only affect symbols
 in the current scope.

It sounds like a bug to me if they're not consistent.

- Jonathan M Davis

"monarch_dodra" <monarchdodra gmail.com> writes:

On Saturday, 16 August 2014 at 19:30:16 UTC, Jonathan M Davis via 
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
 On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 14:39:00 +0200
 Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d-learn
 <digitalmars-d-learn puremagic.com> wrote:

 On 08/16/14 13:58, Philippe Sigaud via Digitalmars-d-learn 
 wrote:
 On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Artur Skawina via
 Digitalmars-d-learn

 http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.125.1397731134.2763.digitalmars-d puremagic.com

 Okay...

 So  safe includes child scopes. I suppose  trusted and 
  system work
 in the same way.

 *but*

 nothrow,  nogc and UDA's do not include child scopes. 
 Putting them
 at the beginning of a module will not affect methods in
 aggregates...

 What's the situation for pure? (I don't have a D compiler 
 handy
 right now, or I would test it myself).

  safe,  trusted,  system, shared, immutable, const, inout and 
 `extern
 (...)` affect child scopes. `synchronized` does too, but in a 
 rather
 unintuitive way; hopefully nobody uses this. ;)

 Other attributes, including 'pure' and 'nothrow' only affect 
 symbols
 in the current scope.

 It sounds like a bug to me if they're not consistent.

 - Jonathan M Davis

Well, you got   system to override  safe, but no  impure or 
 throws. So the behavior can kind of make sense in a way. Maybe.

"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:

On Saturday, 16 August 2014 at 20:48:25 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
 On Saturday, 16 August 2014 at 19:30:16 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
 via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
 On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 14:39:00 +0200
 Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d-learn
 <digitalmars-d-learn puremagic.com> wrote:


  safe,  trusted,  system, shared, immutable, const, inout and 
 `extern
 (...)` affect child scopes. `synchronized` does too, but in a 
 rather
 unintuitive way; hopefully nobody uses this. ;)

 Other attributes, including 'pure' and 'nothrow' only affect 
 symbols
 in the current scope.

 It sounds like a bug to me if they're not consistent.

 - Jonathan M Davis

 Well, you got   system to override  safe, but no  impure or 
  throws. So the behavior can kind of make sense in a way. Maybe.

Except that attributes like const, immutable, shared, and inout
can't be reversed either (in fact  system,  trusted, and  safe -
and maybe extern - are the only ones from that list that can be,
so while I could see making that separation, that's not what's
actually happening.

- Jonathan M Davis

ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn <digitalmars-d-learn puremagic.com> writes:

On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 20:48:23 +0000
monarch_dodra via Digitalmars-d-learn
<digitalmars-d-learn puremagic.com> wrote:

 Well, you got   system to override  safe, but no  impure or=20
  throws. So the behavior can kind of make sense in a way. Maybe.

talking about attributes. the unability to reverse 'final:' makes me
mad. i'm almost ready to patch the compiler myself and start using this
feature even if it will be never accepted in mainline, like i'm doing
now with 'foreach (auto i; ...)'.