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

[Don]

Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
> 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

Obviously my rule isn't correct. It's hard to come up with a rule that 
includes @property, without including everything else.