proposed @noreturn attribute

[Seb via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 17 July 2017 at 23:26:18 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>
> Actually, I don't really care enough about this issue to want 
> it to be implemented one way or another, as long as there is 
> *some* way to annotate a non-returning function.
>
> But the point is that so much time and effort is being spent on 
> discussing and designing a feature that you have admitted 
> yourself to be "rarely used". As a disinterested bystander I 
> find it somewhat amusing (and sad) to see so much 
> over-engineering of an overly-complex system involving a new 
> basic type in the language, which in turn entails all sorts of 
> corner cases in how it will interact with existing types and 
> constructs, not to mention the implementation complexities that 
> will be involved to pull it off -- all for what?  Just to be 
> able to say "function F doesn't return".  Seems like 
> disproportionate effort for only marginal returns (har har).


I can't agree more. This is textbook procrastination and 
bike-shedding [1]!
There are dozens of open regressions that could have fixed or 
great, stalled PRs that could have been reviewed.
In fact if only PRs would be as heartily reviewed as the 
discussion here, things like the fact that DMD leaks all symbols 
when imported selectively [2] would have been uncovered earlier.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
[2] 
https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/5584#issuecomment-314910297