accept @pure @nothrow @return attributes

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 1/28/15 10:59 AM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
>>> 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.

It may be the case you're using different definitions of the term 
"contextual keyword". Far as I can tell you want the identifier "nogc" 
be recognized in certain places by the compiler as special, and 
otherwise just not be special at all. That's a contextual keyword. If 
that's the case you were well understood by both Walter and myself. I 
happen to recognize the merit of contextual keyword in general, but 
Walter has a stronger opposition to it. It doesn't seem to me this 
particular application is compelling enough to warrant the precedent. -- 
Andrei