Proposal: Definition of @-attributes

[Jesse Phillips]

Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:

> In the "Function calls" thread the question of "which attributes should 
> be in the @-namespace" has again come up.
>
>
> Problem:
> Currently, there doesn't seem to be any clear definition of which 
> attributes should be prefixed with @ and which shouldn't.  New 
> attributes get an @, while already existing attributes don't, and it all 
> seems a bit arbitrary.  Then again, we probably don't want *all* 
> attributes to be written with @, as that would just make code look messy:

To me attributes can make the code look uglier and, as pointed out,
there there really is no clear seperation.

So in my opinion, to keep the code looking clean attributes should only
include those for the function, not its parameters. This prevents in,
out, ref, const, etc. and allows for @safe, @property, etc.

If a delegate is a parameter than attributes would of course be ok in
the parameter since they apply to a function.