DIP 1029---Add throw as Function Attribute---Community Review Round 1

[James Blachly]

On 1/14/20 3:28 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 1/14/2020 3:21 AM, WebFreak001 wrote:
>> I don't think making the attribute "throw" is the best way to go 
>> though. Currently most attributes use the at-attribute syntax which 
>> makes them very unambiguous and easier to (visually) parse. I would 
>> suggest instead of having throw as attribute, the new attribute should 
>> be @throws instead. `throws` can also be argued for that it is 
>> "better" to read like: "function foo throws" than "function foo throw"
> 
> It's already a keyword so there's no problem with having it be 'throw'.
> 
> Having 'throw', 'nothrow' and 'throws' as keywords looks excessive.
> 
> 
>> Additionally if we make this an at-attribute, it can very easily be 
>> extended in the future to have arguments what kind of exceptions are 
>> being thrown by this function, for example using template argument 
>> syntax to be the easiest and most consistent to parse. This also 
>> exists in other languages like Java and helps both with linting for 
>> try-catch, but also extremely helps with documentation.
>>
>> For symmetry with nothrow it might be worth looking into providing 
>> nothrow as @nothrow attribute instead too.
> 
> The @ syntax for this is simply unnecessary.
> 

Walter:

To back up WebFreak001's assertions: the seemingly random keyword 
versus @attribute decorators for functions are very jarring and 
disconcerting for new and even intermediate users.

This is a perfect opportunity to harmonize things that, for very little 
downside, improve the apparent coherence of the language.

"throws" also sounds far more grammatical than "throw"