Don wrote: ... > > I genuinely thought @pure, @nothrow was a no-brainer. > > I really thought the explanation that "we made all attibutes use the @ > form, except those where it was prevented by historical precedent" was > quite defensible. > > But I was very, very wrong. Looks like the community is giving a massive > vote for complete unpredictability. > > <Throws hands in air />
Massive? Not everybody in this thread was against these rules and this thread is not even massive (yet?) I like it. Ideally you want to capture the reason why there is some sort consensus here with @pure and @nothrow. It's just a bit backwards justifying something after the fact and messy, but that's how it is. Better to have a weird rule than no rule imho. This probably also has been talked to death but I can't refrain from asking: when hasAttribute will be implemented, will user defined attributes be considered or are they definitely off the table for D2?
