accept @pure @nothrow @return attributes

[Kagamin via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 15:25:05 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 15:18:44 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>>> Same goes for possible introduction of new attributes - if 
>>> syntax for those and UDA is identical, it can break code same 
>>> as introducing new keywords.
>>
>> Same for any symbol. Do you have a solution?
>
> Long time ago I have proposed to actually define built-it 
> attributes as UDA's in public druntime module. That way any 
> possible conflict can be resolved relatively easy with dfix 
> using module system disambugation (or just hard-code druntime 
> symbols to be legal to shadow by user ones, though that sounds 
> too much of a magic and surprise)

I suppose, when UDA conflicts with builtin attribute, that UDA 
can be still disambiguated through module system.