map kinds of Ranges

[Robert Clipsham]

On 24/05/2011 04:28, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> Thoughts on this?
>
> I believe that the best and most likely to be implemented syntax which has
> been suggested (it was Andrei's idea IIRC) is to simply add optional clauses
> to attributes. So, instead of pure, you'd do pure(condition). If the condition
> is true, the templated function it's on is pure. If the condition is false,
> then the function isn't pure. Don't expect pure to become @pure or nothrow to
> become @nothrow though. I think that at this point, any attribute which is a
> keyword is going to stay one, and any attribute that has @ on the front of it
> is going to stay that way as well.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Wouldn't it make sense to follow the same syntax as auto ref? auto pure, 
auto nothrow, auto @safe etc? (Although I guess that doesn't allow for 
conditions, nevermind :<)

-- 
Robert
http://octarineparrot.com/