accept @pure @nothrow @return attributes

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 15:37:28 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> inconsistencies and annoying points in the language. And much 
> of the time,
> those inconsistencies and annoying points are forced by other 
> aspects of the
> language that actually make things nice and clean. There are 
> always
> tradeoffs, and often, there is no clear, right answer to how it 
> should be.

I think I misinterpreted what you meant to say, but if the 
semantics are good and sound then you should be able to device a 
consistent syntax for the language that is in line with current 
terminology in comp sci (even if that means pointing to Wikipedia 
for a definition of the term).

That would of course mean a lot of changes to D terminology:

"const" => "readonly"
"enum" => "const"
"range"=>"iterator"
"pure"=>"no global effect"
"ubyte" => "byte"
"lazy" => "by name"
etc...