DIP 1029---Add throw as Function Attribute---Community Review Round 1

[bachmeier]

On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 at 16:32:51 UTC, Joseph Rushton 
Wakeling wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 January 2020 at 15:58:31 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
>> I disagree. That's how your language turns into C++. The tough 
>> part of language design is making decisions conditional on 
>> what the language as a whole looks like, and what it's going 
>> to be in ten years.
>
> I agree that one should think holistically when considering 
> smaller changes.  But one should also be clear about what 
> couplings really _need_ to exist, and which don't.
>
>> My opinion is that it's an ugly inconsistency to give only one 
>> attribute an inverse.
>
> OK.  That's essentially an aesthetic concern, though:

Is it a big deal? Maybe not, but it's strange to say "You can 
invert [random attribute] but no others." "Oh, why is that?" 
"Because that's all that was in the DIP." It's just sloppy and 
amateurish to design a language like that.

> No, you don't need to write up a DIP to counter a DIP, but 
> comprehensively introducing invertible attributes _will_ need a 
> DIP.  So if you (or anyone else) thinks that is needed or 
> valuable, it's worth putting that DIP together.

I don't even know if that's a good idea. All I'm asking for is a 
sensible argument in favor of adding an inverse of one and only 
one attribute. It makes absolutely no sense to me to have 
negation of nothrow but not nogc.