accept @pure @nothrow @return attributes

[Jonathan Marler via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 26 January 2015 at 23:50:12 UTC, Zach the Mystic wrote:
> On Monday, 26 January 2015 at 23:32:59 UTC, Jonathan Marler 
> wrote:
>> Copy/Paste:
>>
>>>> solution).  By restricting the attributes to only appear 
>>>> after a function signature, it would also normalize the 
>>>> issue of consistent location of attributes, but this is 
>>>> another debate.
>>
>> The return type doesn't appear after the function signature.
>
> Yes it *is* another debate. Now you can't add attributes at the 
> beginning:
>
> // no can do anymore
> nogc pure myUda
> retType funcName() {
>    ...
> }
>
> // must do this instead
> retType funcName() nogc pure myUdal {
> }
>
> You're suggesting canceling a whole style of labeling a 
> function, aren't you? It's a big change. I wouldn't accept it 
> unless it demonstrated a clear advantage. In fact, maybe it 
> *can* demonstrate such, having all D functions be uniform in 
> how their attributes are written, but you'll need a whole new 
> thread and a DIP, and personally I don't see this carrying its 
> weight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I'm not proposing that we don't allow attributes before a 
function, I was mentioning an idea related to my proposal.  I 
agree with everything you said, you're just not addressing the 
proposal itself (see the link).