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

[Michel Fortin]

On 2010-02-26 17:48:05 -0500, "Jérôme M. Berger" <jeberger at free.fr> said:

> 	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...

Same here, not contesting @pure or @nothrow.

I'd prefer to see a rationale based on a simple principle. Creating a 
few twisted principles to justify what we have now is worse than having 
none in my opinion. Lets be honest with ourselves and accept that it's 
like this for historical reasons, and be done with it.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin at michelf.com
http://michelf.com/