accept @pure @nothrow @return attributes

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 1/28/15 11:13 AM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 19:04:50 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> 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
>
> Ok now we're getting somewhere.  I guess the next thing I'd like to ask
> is what is the argument against having a word be a function attribute in
> one instance and a regular identifier in another?
>
> I would think the reason would be it could make the grammar ambiguous.
> That's why I proposed it only be valid on the right hand side of the
> function to guarantee it doesn't introduce any ambiguity.  Other then
> that, I don't see any reason why it's a bad thing.  It doesn't make the
> syntax more complicated, it doesn't maker it harder to parse, I just
> don't see why its bad.
>
> Note: keep in mind...I'm not asking why it's bad to have a keyword
> (recognized as a keyword by the lexer) also be an identifier, I'm asking
> why it's bad to have a function attribute also be an identifier.

I'd say we just drop it. It's a waste of time to talk about it. There's 
no proof on why the idea isn't accepted, and there's no need for one.

I just wrote out of empathy. As a newcomer to language communities 
(including this one) I've had literally dozens of ideas on how they can 
be improved. All looked great to myself at the time, and of them some 
felt actually unassailably good. So good, in fact, that I'd attach a 
sense of importance to them and was convinced that explaining and 
advertising them well was essential, and that opponents didn't really 
understand their advantages. For the most part they were in reality weak 
ideas of a n00b, ideas of greatly overstated merit, and acknowledging 
that has made me better.


Andrei