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

[Pelle Månsson]

On 02/28/2010 10:01 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
> 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.

Sorry if I go on and miss the point some more, but I dislike this a lot. 
That's imposing restrictions on future @attributes. Like, for example, 
@memoized. Or something like that. @traced, maybe.

This is me envisioning user-defined @attributes, really. They can reduce 
boilerplate and increase flexibility in cases like @traced.