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

[Don]

Denis Koroskin wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:50:19 +0300, bearophile 
> <bearophileHUGS at lycos.com> wrote:
> 
>> Walter Bright:
>>> Naked is not an externally visible attribute of a function, signature or
>>>   type, it only concerns the internals. Therefore, it shouldn't be an
>>> attribute.
>>
>> On the other hand I agree with them that currently "naked" is not in 
>> the best place. So let's try another alternative:
>>
>> void foo() {
>>   @naked asm {
>>     ...
>>   }
>> }
>>
> 
> No, it applies @naked to an asm block, which is misleading: naked should 
> be applied to the whole function body. 

Yes, but if a function is naked, it should be illegal for it to contain 
any non-asm executable code. The compiler can't generate correct code 
when it's in a naked function. For all it knows, the function might even 
have swapped stack pointers!

I believe D is quite correct in making 'naked' an asm instruction. Not 
all CPUs might support it. (It's only relevant for CPUs/compilers where 
a frame pointer is used).

> void foo()
> @naked body
> {

LOL! Spam filters would love that!!