@safe(bool)

[bitwise via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 18 August 2017 at 01:43:42 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> [...]
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Makes sense to me.

The first question that comes to mind is if the extra generality 
provided by DIP 1012 is actually useful, let alone, worth 
breaking changes. The rationale section of the DIP only mentions 
negating attributes, which is easily accomplished with what I 
suggested. Unless that section is expanded with additional 
practical use cases, then it doesn't seem worth the trouble to me.

The DIP mentions tagging a module declaration with default 
attributes. If the whole purpose of the DIP is to allow for 
negating attributes, why would you even need this change, when 
the DIP would effectively make it ok to put "@nogc: @safe: @etc:" 
at the top of the file?

My suggestion does not cover "inferred" as discussed in the DIP, 
but that could be achieved by letting something like "@default" 
reset all attributes for a given symbol.

I'll concede that DIP1012 makes more logical sense than the 
current state of things, but it seems like something that would 
be best achieved during a transition to a subsequent language 
version. It seems commonplace here, to discard suggestions based 
on their current viability, when it may be better to add them to 
a feature backlog that could be considered when talking about the 
possibility of a D3.