A rationale for pure nothrow ---> @pure @nothrow (and nothing else changes)

["Jérôme M. Berger"]

Don wrote:
> I genuinely thought @pure, @nothrow was a no-brainer.
> 
> I really thought the explanation that "we made all attibutes use the @
> form, except those where it was prevented by historical precedent" was
> quite defensible.
> 
> But I was very, very wrong. Looks like the community is giving a massive
> vote for complete unpredictability.
> 
> <Throws hands in air />
> 
	I didn't see anyone contest @pure or @nothrow in this thread. What
several people (including me) contest is the ridiculous
pseudo-rationale you've given. "For historical reasons" is a good
enough rationale to explain why some attributes (like "private")
don't use the @ syntax while others do. No need to drag C/C++ into
this...

		Jerome
-- 
mailto:jeberger at free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeberger at jabber.fr

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20100226/647b68ec/attachment.pgp>