map kinds of Ranges

[Mehrdad]

On 5/23/2011 8:28 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> I believe that the best and most likely to be implemented syntax which 
> has been suggested (it was Andrei's idea IIRC) is to simply add 
> optional clauses to attributes. So, instead of pure, you'd do 
> pure(condition). If the condition is true, the templated function it's 
> on is pure. If the condition is false, then the function isn't pure. 
> Don't expect pure to become @pure or nothrow to become @nothrow 
> though. I think that at this point, any attribute which is a keyword 
> is going to stay one, and any attribute that has @ on the front of it 
> is going to stay that way as well. - Jonathan M Davis 
One question:
Why make the syntax complicated for just a little gain? Wouldn't it kill 
a lot more birds with one stone if we allow for attributes?