accept @pure @nothrow @return attributes

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 15:18:44 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> Same goes for possible introduction of new attributes - if 
>> syntax for those and UDA is identical, it can break code same 
>> as introducing new keywords.
>
> Same for any symbol. Do you have a solution?

Long time ago I have proposed to actually define built-it 
attributes as UDA's in public druntime module. That way any 
possible conflict can be resolved relatively easy with dfix using 
module system disambugation (or just hard-code druntime symbols 
to be legal to shadow by user ones, though that sounds too much 
of a magic and surprise)

>> I don't see any _vision_ behind the change, just moving bits 
>> around.
>>
>> It is not well-thought.
>
> @pure, @nothrow and @return are relatively obscure attributes, 
> so if they change, it should cause minor commotion. If you want 
> to overhaul everything, you can propose a DIP.

The one who wants to make a change should propose a DIP. I am 
personally OK with status quo for the time being - there are more 
important issues.