Should pure nothrow ---> @pure @nothrow ?

[Denis Koroskin]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:18:05 +0300, Don <nospam at nospam.com> wrote:

> It seems that pure and nothrow are attributes, just like @safe.
> (By contrast, you can overload functions based on const and immutable).
> Should the names be changed?

I agree. I also believe there should be @naked (it's somewhat unintuitive  
that asm { naked; } anywhere withing function body makes it naked).