accept @pure @nothrow @return attributes

[Zach the Mystic via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 26 January 2015 at 21:25:57 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
> The lexer would recognize these attributes as normal ID tokens.
>  The grammar could be amended to allow a function to be 
> decorated with keywords and generic id tokens.  Then the 
> meaning of those tokens would be handled by semantic analysis.

How do you tell the difference between a return type and a user 
attribute on the left side?

nogc myUda1 myUda2 returnType funcName() { return returnType(a); }

They are UDAs only because they are not the second-to-last id 
(the return type) or the last id (the function name). How do you 
do 'auto' inferred return types in this context, when the 
compiler thinks your UDA is also your return type? Also, why 
burden the *programmer* with having to sort this out? It's too 
ambiguous to read, for my taste. If I just switch the names the 
entire signature changes:

nogc returnType myUda1 myUda2 funcName() { return returnType(a); }

Now it's supposed to return a myUda2, just because you switched 
the ordering? I can see why this idea would be rejected.