Proposal: __not(keyword)

[Adam D. Ruppe]

On Friday, 14 September 2018 at 18:13:49 UTC, Eugene Wissner 
wrote:
> Makes the code unreadable.

It is the foo: that causes this, not the __not...

> For @nogc, pure and so forth there were imho a better proposal 
> with a boolean value:
> @gc(true), @gc(false), pure(true), pure(false) etc. It is also 
> consistent with the existing UDA syntax.

Yes, I still actually prefer that proposal, but it has been 
around for a long time and still isn't here.

I want something, ANYTHING to unset these things. I don't care 
which proposal or which syntax, I just want it to be possible.