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?

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

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).

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.

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.

>>> 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.

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

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).

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

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.