FAQ for newbies who see pure @safe nothrow @nogc

[matovitch via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 29 January 2015 at 15:54:54 UTC, Jonathan Marler 
wrote:
> On Thursday, 29 January 2015 at 15:39:18 UTC, matovitch wrote:
>> Yes, if @ttributes are better because you can create 
>> identifier with the same name why aren't they used everywhere 
>> ? By the way, the denomination makes sense too : function 
>> attibutes are either built-in or user defined attributes. But 
>> const can be a qualifier or a function/method attribute that 
>> is two very different things...maybe not beeing able to use 
>> const as a function attribute but @const would make more sense 
>> ?
>
> The purpose of this thread wasn't to re-discuss what was 
> already discussed.  The answer to your idea can be found in the 
> other thread 
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/rtwbtxigfeupvykpbamh@forum.dlang.org.
>  It's gonna be a long read so I'll summarize what I believe is 
> the correct answer.
>
> The problem we are trying to solve is that the function 
> attributes are inconsistent.  Some use @ like "@safe" and 
> "@nogc" and some don't like "pure" and "nothrow".
>
> So one idea is to require an '@' symbol in front of all of them 
> for the sake of consistency.  The problem with this idea is 
> that you've now introduced inconsistency somewhere else.  Every 
> keyword that you put an '@' symbol in front of, will be used 
> somewhere else without an '@' symbol.  Like this:
>
> abstract class MyClass { }
> @abstract void myfunc();
>
> See the inconsistency?  You're gonna end up with alot of these 
> types of inconsistencies. In addition, you've made the rule of 
> when to use the '@' symbol more complex.  Before it was, "Use 
> '@' if it is not a keyword".  Now it's, "Use '@' if it is not a 
> keyword except when it's a function attribute".  This 
> definition will likely be made worse since people will want to 
> solve the newly introduced inconsistencies.  So the new 
> definition will become, "Use '@' if it is a keyword except if 
> it's a function attribute or a class specifier".  By the time 
> you solve every inconsistency you'll have made every usage of 
> every keyword use the '@' symbol.  Then the rule will be 
> "Always use the '@' symbol".
>
> This will definitely be included on the FAQ :)  I'll reword it 
> and modify it but I agree that people will want an explanation 
> for this.

One can argue that it's hard to remember what is a keyword 
(especially in D where there are many) and easier to distinguish 
beetween qualifiers and attributes. But I understand legacy code 
is an issue and I agree that the FAQ should just state the facts.