accept @pure @nothrow @return attributes

Jonathan Marler via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Wed Jan 28 10:59:22 PST 2015


>> On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 18:27:34 UTC, Andrei 
>> Alexandrescu wrote:
>
> That's not a misunderstanding. Your proposal has been 
> understood. It can be made to work. That doesn't necessarily 
> make it desirable. I don't think it's particularly helpful and 
> Walter is against it, so simply put it won't happen. Let it go. 
> Thanks for it and keep the good ideas coming. -- Andrei

I don't have a problem with letting things go.  What I have a 
problem with is poor communication.  Walter never gave me a 
"valid" reason for why he didn't like the proposal.  I'm totally 
ok if it gets rejected, but I have no idea why it was rejected.  
If anything, I just want to understand so that I make better 
decisions in the future.

When I say he misunderstood I say that because the reason he gave 
for disliking the proposal doesn't make sense.  He's using the 
"Straw Man" logical fallacy.  He's attacking my proposal by 
assuming it's something that it isn't.  He keeps mentioning 
keywords and "context-sensitive" tokens but my proposal has 
nothing to do with those things (even by his own definition of 
them).  Quite frustrating.

I hope you see that I'm just trying to understand.  I don't care 
if I'm wrong, I just want someone to tell my why I'm wrong.  And 
when someone asks me why we weren't able to make function 
attributes that weren't keywords, I can give them an answer.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list