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

[Robert Clipsham]

On 26/02/10 21:48, Don wrote:
> I genuinely thought @pure, @nothrow was a no-brainer.
>
> I really thought the explanation that "we made all attibutes use the @
> form, except those where it was prevented by historical precedent" was
> quite defensible.
>
> But I was very, very wrong. Looks like the community is giving a massive
> vote for complete unpredictability.
>
> <Throws hands in air />

I don't see why people seem to be against this, @pure and @nothrow seem 
to fit right in under what I think of as attributes. Historical reasons 
seems perfectly valid to me, considering most users will be coming to D 
from other languages as opposed to learning from scratch. I agree the 
rules you suggested need a little tweaking before they're there, they're 
along the right lines though.