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

[Steven Schveighoffer]

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

Fine, then go ahead and make the changes.  Why do we need a weird rule to  
make the changes?  Can't we determine a rule later (is that not what we  
are doing now)?  Does the rule need to be in the book?  I think just make  
the changes, and we can determine a rule later, when people start asking  
about it.

BTW, I'm in favor of the change, I couldn't care less about the rule.   
Arbitrariness is inherent in any language design based on English.  I like  
how @word applies to the function without affecting the signature, it's  
more of a hint to the compiler.  The fact that you can't override a  
function based on @pure or @nothrow seals the deal for me.

-Steve