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

[Michel Fortin]

On 2010-02-28 10:06:39 -0500, Don <nospam at nospam.com> said:

> Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>> I would also tend to agree that this set of rules is a bit arbitrary
>> and seems a bit like some overfitted classifier in pattern recognition
>> (although there were worse sets or rules in that regard).
> 
> Almost everyone has missed the point. We are OUT OF TIME. This is just 
> damage control.

There was more than one point in your original argumentation... here 
are a few ones:

1. We should have a rationale for what is an attribute and what is not. 
This one I agree.
2. You proposed a rationale: I think your proposed rationale is bad.
3. pure and nothrow should become @pure and @nothrow. I don't see 
anyone contesting that.

Have I so much missed the point? I know we're sorta out of time. But 
please understand that damage control by trying to justify the 
unjustifiable can be worse than the damage itself. I support the 
proposed changes, but not your proposed overcomplicated rationale for 
them.

If you want a rationale, I think it'd be fine to say that attributes 
are things you can ignore because they only have a restrictive effect 
on the semantics (the definition you said you invented). Then mention 
there is an exception: @property.


> The only other worthwhile question is whether we have a concensus on 
> @deprecated. We might.

I don't know about others, but I'm for it.


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