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

[Lars T. Kyllingstad]

Don wrote:
> #ponce wrote:
>>> Definitely. And what about @deprecated and @override?
>>
>> As override is now required, i don't think it should be an attribute.
> 
> As I understand it, one of the characteristics of attributes is that you 
> should be able to remove them from the entire program, without affecting 
> the behaviour.  All they are doing is adding additional compile-time 
> constraints. (const and immutable aren't attributes, because you're 
> allowed to overload functions based on them).

If this is the rule, shouldn't the protection attributes be moved into 
the annotation namespace as well? (@private, @protected, @package, 
@public) Since everything is public by default in D, a program will keep 
working even if you remove them.

NOTE: I don't necessarily think they should, but I do think there should 
be a definite rule for which attributes are @annotations and which 
aren't. Otherwise it just seems random.

-Lars