accept @pure @nothrow @return attributes

[Jonathan Marler via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 18:27:34 UTC, Andrei 
Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 1/28/15 10:19 AM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 17:52:56 UTC, Mike wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 17:41:54 UTC, Jonathan 
>>> Marler wrote:
>>>
>>>> PLUS, this would be very simple to implement!
>>>
>>> Then I recommend you submit a pull request.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>> I would but Walter said no.  I'm certain he misunderstood my 
>> proposal
>> and I tried to explain it to him but I couldn't get him to 
>> address it.
>
> Was that the proposal leading to this state of affairs (quoting 
> from your post on 2015/01/26 16:05 PST?
>
>> Here's what would change
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> void myfunc() nogc; // VALID (Only if this proposal is 
>> accepted)
>> void myfunc() safe; // VALID (Only if this proposal is 
>> accepted)
>>
>>
>> Here's what WOULD NOT change
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> nogc myfunc(); // STILL INVALID: invalid unless it can be 
>> verified
>>               //          that this wouldn't result in 
>> ambiguity
>>               //          in the grammar
>> void myfunc() @nogc; // STILL VALID (no change)
>> @nogc myfunc(); // STILL VALID (no change)
>
>
> Andrei

You can follow this thread: 
http://forum.dlang.org/post/fxbqqecgqdhrepxsjnep@forum.dlang.org

I explained my proposal 3 or 4 times but each time Walter seemed 
to be misunderstanding my proposal saying it was going to create 
"context-sensitive" tokens and so he would immediately dismiss 
it.  I tried to understand what he meant by "context-sensitive" 
tokens because my proposal didn't have anything to do with them 
(at least my definition of them), but even after he defined them 
my proposal clearly does not create them.

Walter "[A context-sensitive token is] A keyword in one context 
and an identifier in another"

Anyway, I'll restate my proposal again:

1. Modify the SYNTAX of function to allow it to be decorated with 
IDENTIFIER tokens on the right hand side

void foo() x; // valid SYNTAX (note: has not semantic meaning)
void foo() safe; // valid SYNTAX and valid SEMANTICS

2. Modify the code that interprets the syntax tree to recognize 
these identifiers as function attributes.

A simple solution that would allow us to standardize where we put 
the function attributes and allow us to remove the '@' character 
from all non-keyword function attributes.  Seems like a 
no-brainer to me.