RFC: DIP draft for "Compiler-defined Attribute Consistency"

Paul Backus snarwin at gmail.com
Wed Jul 21 23:51:50 UTC 2021

On Wednesday, 21 July 2021 at 22:43:49 UTC, Rune Morling wrote:
> For the current DIP to go anywhere, we'd probably need to 
> agree/converge on how to divide all attributes into a 
> reasonable set of groups?

If the proposal is just to allow `@pure` and `@nothrow` (and 
`@throw`, once DIP 1029 [1] is implemented), I think it would 
probably be sufficient to make the case that the function 
attributes form a distinct group.


> Once we have that, we can then discuss inter-group consistency 
> and propose the relevant changes.
> What other group distinctions would make sense (if any)?

As far as I know, the only groups that include both `@` and 
non-`@` attributes are (1) the function attributes, and (2) the 
group consisting of `deprecated` and `@__future`.

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list