A rationale for pure nothrow ---> @pure @nothrow (and nothing else changes)

[Michel Fortin]

On 2010-02-26 01:06:09 -0500, Don <nospam at nospam.com> said:

> No, I'm trying to avoid a "prehistorical accident" type of rule.
> 
> For these purposes, the history of D begins when TDPL is published. 
> We're still in prehistory for a few more weeks.
> 
> Compatibility with C and C++ has always been critical for D; D contains 
> many historical accidents from C. But D has not yet set any historical 
> precedents.

All that's fine.

> If we simultaneously release a language with @attributes, together with 
> attributes that don't use them, it looks silly.

That's true.

But I think the rules you proposed at the start of this thread are 
worse than the "prehistorical accident" explanation. I think both 
explanations are silly in their own right, but one is much more complex 
to grasp for no benefit. Principles must be kept simple to be useful. 
If they're not simple they'll look arbitrary anyway and you'll end up 
trying to make the arbitrary look rational. I think it's better not to 
pretend there is a principle rather than saying there is one that looks 
like an excuse.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin at michelf.com
http://michelf.com/