accept @pure @nothrow @return attributes

[Jonathan Marler via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 at 03:25:59 UTC, Zach the Mystic 
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 at 02:40:16 UTC, Walter Bright 
> wrote:
>> On 1/26/2015 6:15 PM, Zach the Mystic wrote:
>>> What's keeping you from committing to 'dfix' as the way to 
>>> solve issues like the
>>> one in this thread?
>>
>> Inertia of people being reluctant to use it. It's still work 
>> for people to use, it's not part of their build process.
>
> What about compiler integration? I'm talking about fundamental 
> language changes. Why would people use it if it didn't have 
> official backing and wasn't part of the compiler package? In 
> this post:
>
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/uimpnhiweuitnnbeqshu@forum.dlang.org
>
> ... I said: 'For example, let's say dfix is included with the 
> compiler package.
> Now you get an error, saying: "Error: `@nogc` is no longer
> accepted, but can be automatically replaced with `nogc`. Run 
> dfix
> on this file? (y/n)"... or whatever is deemed the secure 
> approach
> to this feature.'
>
> That's what I mean by "commiting to dfix."

This has come up before. I believe if was at DConf 2014 that 
Walter answered this question. If I remember, the gist was that 
Walter didn't like the idea that the compiler could rewrite a 
user's code, he seemed kinda "creeped" out to think that a 
compiler would do this.  Then someone suggested the compiler 
could generate some type of awk expression that the programmer 
could run to modify the code.  Anyway, just relaying what I 
remember.

IMO, if the rewrite tool was done well it could be a benefit.  I 
think a preview of the changes would be a great feature.  But I 
also understand Walter's point.