https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3572

Dennis <dkorpel@live.nl> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |dkorpel@live.nl
         Resolution|---                         |INVALID

--- Comment #9 from Dennis <dkorpel@live.nl> ---
(In reply to yebblies from comment #8)
> eg.
> pure void foo(string x)
> By definition calling foo does no observable work.

False.

```
pure void foo(string x) {
    throw new Exception(x);
}
```

Here's a nothrow one:
```
pure nothrow void assertPositive(int x) {
    assert(x > 0);
}
```

> While this might be WONTFIX or LATER like issue 3882, it is not invalid.

Until a case can be identified where there is actually "no observable work" guaranteed, this is invalid.

(And even then, it's debatable whether "no observable work" is enough grounds to make something not compile. `int x = 0; x += 0;` does nothing, but it does and should compile.)

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3572

--- Comment #10 from Michal Minich <michal.minich@gmail.com> ---
Agreed. even

pure void nothrow never() { assert(false); }

can throw Error, which is observable effect.

--