accept @pure @nothrow @return attributes

[ketmar via Digitalmars-d]

On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 00:03:51 +0000, Brian Schott wrote:

> On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 23:22:34 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 18:54:27 +0000, 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.
>>
>> yep. that is "slave to the machine" approach. i don't really care how
>> hard machine should work to understand what i want. ;-)
> 
> I take it you also don't care if your IDE lags for 5 seconds every time
> you type a character?

sure, i will not use such IDE, 'cause it's fubared. yet it has nothing 
with "great grammars": it's fubared 'cause the authors were thinking 
about "how we can write that cool IDE so everybody will prise us" instead 
of "how we can write our IDE that it will be fast and easy".

and generally speaking, IDEs sux.

>> i.e. i can't see why i have to deal with problems of
>> compiler/tool/editor author. it's easy -- at least in this case -- for
>> human to see where keywords are keywords. machine can see that too with
>> some analysis.
> 
> I'm a tool writer. If I have enough problems, I don't build the tool.
> The problem is now your problem.

that's good. as we already have at least 4 codebases to build tools upon, 
and you gave up using that and insisting on writing another one, and 
failed... i doubt that your tool was really important or even usable. so 
now i don't have to try another tool just to throw it away.

> You know what else is easy for humans? Image and audio processing and
> knowing how to walk. Things that are easy for machines are hard for
> humans. Things that are easy for humans are hard for machines.

i wonder why we don't do all our programs in machine code today. 'cause, 
you know, it's hard for machine to parse all that languages. so let's use 
machine code!

>> yet somehow situation is horribly reversed: instead of machine helping
>> me to do what i want, that's me who must obey the machine orders and do
>> the work that machine can do for me.
> 
> If it really is work that the machine can do for you, why haven't you
> made the machine do it?

i did. i'm not using "vanilla" D, that was mentioned in this thread. and 
you know what? i didn't encounter *any* problems with it.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20150129/9655ecc6/attachment.sig>