accept @pure @nothrow @return attributes

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 at 01:14:01 UTC, Zach the Mystic 
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 at 00:57:24 UTC, Jonathan Marler 
> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 at 00:44:14 UTC, Zach the Mystic
>>> 3. Singularity of usage also matters. There should only be one
>>> way to mark a given attribute, either with or without `@`.
>>
>> I agree that the proposal doesn't solve the consistency issue, 
>> but the proposal doesn't make things more inconsistent then 
>> they already are. It adds another way to write these 
>> attributes, but it adds a way that makes more sense in my 
>> opinion.  This is a step in the right direction in solving the 
>> problem.  The next step would be to solve the consistency 
>> issue, but again, that's another debate. To conclude, which 
>> code would you rather write?
>
> The consistency issue is precisely that there should not be 
> more than one way to write an attribute. Note that that's 
> precisely where most of the opposition to this thread's 
> original proposal came from. Uniformity means never having to 
> explain to anybody why there is more than one way to do 
> something. Both this thread's proposal and your proposal 
> *introduce* inconsistency in this way.
>

The old syntax can be deprecated and removed after an appropriate 
period.