accept @pure @nothrow @return attributes

[Zach the Mystic via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 19:07:59 UTC, Jonathan Marler 
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 18:54:29 UTC, Zach the Mystic 
> wrote:
>> I think a keyword is a keyword is a keyword. If it's a keyword 
>> to the right it should be one everywhere. How is somethign 
>> that's a built-in attribute one place and an identifier in 
>> another not context sensitive. Walter said that `exit`, `C++`, 
>> i.e. `scope(exit)`, `extern (C++)` etc. were never keywords, 
>> but I disagree. They are indeed context sensitive keywords. 
>> They have wisely been kept to a minimum. They are just 
>> confusing to reason about, except in the most strictly 
>> confined places, where they are now. I think that's why 
>> they're out of the question. They have wisely been kept to a 
>> minimum.
>
> This is actually a valid argument against my proposal.  Thank 
> you! lol.  I don't agree with it but at least it's valid :)  
> Your reasoning depends on how you define a keyword.  You seem 
> to be defining a keyword in terms of an identifier that is 
> recognized by the compiler to have a special meaning.  I define 
> a keyword as a word that the lexer recognizes as a keyword 
> token.
>
> I see what you mean by saying that the word is a function 
> attribute in one place and an identifier in another.  But 
> what's wrong with that?  if I define a struct named 
> mystruct...I could declare one like this:
>
> mystruct mystruct;

It's utterly confusing is the problem. I would consider it a 
great disservice to all D programmers to allow this. Just because 
you can doesn't mean you should. Walter has emphasize there is 
absolutely no shortage of valid words. There is however, a 
shortage of what a programmer can keep organized in his head. 
That's the shortage you should prioritize, sir. I'm not sure how 
to emphasize this anymore. We may just have to agree to disagree.