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

[Jonathan M Davis]

Don wrote:

> 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.
> 
> All that's being discussed here is that it's easier to defend:
> 
> @pure, @nothrow, @safe
> 
> than:
> 
> pure, nothow, @safe
> 
> And I'm arguing that we have a consensus on that.
> 
> The only other worthwhile question is whether we have a concensus on
> @deprecated. We might. Everything else discussed here has been a
> complete waste of time.
> 
> And it may already be too late for @pure @nothrow.

I had no problem with your proposed reasoning, and I don't care much all 
that much if pure, nothrow, or deprecated are attributes or keywords. I'd 
prefer keywords I think, for pure and nothrow, but I don't care all that 
much. Just do what you're going to do, and we'll deal with it. Most of the 
complaints in this thread seem to have to do with your proposed rational 
rather than your proposal, so it seems to me that you might as well just go 
with it. Those who will complain will complain, at it will likely have 
nothing to do with which is what but why, which ultimately doesn't matter 
all that much. It would be nice if there were a very straightforward rule as 
to why something is an attribute or a keyword, but what is is, and the 
biggest difference it would make would be with a newbie learning the 
language, and I don't think that learning whether a particular word is a 
keyword or an attribute is going to take much time to learn or be that big a 
deal overall.

- Jonathan M Davis