Should pure nothrow ---> @pure @nothrow ?

[Walter Bright]

Denis Koroskin wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:18:05 +0300, Don <nospam at nospam.com> wrote:
> 
>> It seems that pure and nothrow are attributes, just like @safe.
>> (By contrast, you can overload functions based on const and immutable).
>> Should the names be changed?
> 
> I agree. I also believe there should be @naked (it's somewhat 
> unintuitive that asm { naked; } anywhere withing function body makes it 
> naked).

Naked is not an externally visible attribute of a function, signature or 
  type, it only concerns the internals. Therefore, it shouldn't be an 
attribute.