[Issue 13388] accept '@' before 'nothrow' and 'pure'

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13388

--- Comment #27 from Don <clugdbug at yahoo.com.au> ---

>(In reply to Jonathan M Davis from comment #14)
>> I really think that we've passed the point where it's worth fixing it.

NO!!!! This attitude is the biggest problem D has.
Please, watch Scott Meyer's talk again. "Most D code is yet to be written".
The future benefits of fixing this kind of crap, are huge. And this one doesn't
even break any existing code.

Omitting the @ from pure and nothrow was heavily criticized at the time. It was
known to be a stupid decision. Two things have changed since then:

(1) We now have UDAs.
(2) @property is gone.

Now, the existence of @property was the only decent argument against @pure,
@nothrow. Nobody could come up with a simple rule as to why 'property' should
be an attribute, because it did actually affect the semantics.
And (1) means that there are more benefits to making pure and nothrow behave as
any other property.

If we allow this, then we can just say "for historical reasons, you can leave
the @ off @pure and @nothrow". I think that's far easier to justify than the
current situation.

I'm fully in favour of this.

--