@safe(bool)

[Nicholas Wilson via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 22 August 2017 at 19:56:46 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> I disagree with both the notion that this is poor language 
> design and that an IDE is required to make sense out of code 
> that uses the new feature.

Indeed, I can't imagine a DIP suggesting to make core regular 
attributes, keyword like getting very far had those attributes 
been added after we got UDAs.

While IDEs may be able to show you instantly what attributes a 
function has, so would the compiler (in the form of an errors 
message if you got it wrong, quality of said message 
notwithstanding), documentation, any dcd based tooling (or any 
other tools that can do symbol resolution) and code searches.

If the tooling is insufficient for this use case, then it should 
be improved as this is a problem that is able to be solved 
completely by tooling. If you choose not to use the tooling, and 
it would solve this problem, then that is fine, but I don't think 
we should limit the design of the language because of that.