accept @pure @nothrow @return attributes

[weaselcat via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 29 January 2015 at 00:14:51 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> 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".

why bother when vim exists : )

>>> 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.
>

Uncalled for IMO, Schott's tools are great.