The "no gc" crowd

[Tourist]

On Wednesday, 9 October 2013 at 14:11:46 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> On Wednesday, 9 October 2013 at 13:57:03 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
>> They aren't opt-out for really any reasonable project though, 
>> because code is reused and those people may want at least the 
>> standard attributes to be set. Personally, the array of 
>> attributes that can be applied to a D function is one of my 
>> biggest pet peeves with the language. It gains me nothing 
>> personally, and adds a lot of extra thought to the process of 
>> writing a function.
>
> This is exactly what I was speaking about. It would have been 
> much more easy if stuff was `pure @safe immutable nothrow` by 
> default and one added `dirty @system mutable throw` on per-need 
> basis after getting compiler error. But that is too late to 
> change and this attribute inference may be only reasonable 
> option.

Maybe it's worth to introduce "pure: @safe: immutable: nothrow:" 
on top of every module as the new recommended design pattern. 
Will it work?

Then it may go through a deprecation phase, e.g. omitting it on 
top of the module becomes a warning, then an error, then it 
becomes the default.