post qualifier and template constraint limitation, is there a reason ?

[ketmar via Digitalmars-d]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 17:34:21 +0000
deadalnix via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 17 January 2015 at 17:08:12 UTC, ketmar via 
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > sure i have. i made alot of patches to the parser, so i know 
> > how it
> > is written. to make this work parser need to be changed not 
> > less than
> > to accept '@' before `pure`, `nothrow` and so on, and this 
> > change was
> > rejected due to added complexity for supporting it by devteam.
> >
> I'm sorry but this is not a good reason. It would be failry easy 
> to add this in SDC's parser, so now what ? it tells nothing about 
> the feature and everything about DMD's parser.
this was one of the good reasons to reject `@pure` syntax, so i can't
see why it's not a good reason to reject OP's syntax.

> > as for "will not be used" -- you can use google to count 
> > requests for
> > this feature. the numbers will show you how much people miss it.
> >
> > i have no habit of writing tales from the faery world, you know.
> 
> Absence of information is not information.
i don't think that you are right here. but i'm not in the right mood to
argue.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20150117/bc07ec7d/attachment-0001.sig>