On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 10:06:39 -0500, Don <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Sönke Ludwig wrote:
I would also tend to agree that this set of rules is a bit arbitrary
and seems a bit like some overfitted classifier in pattern recognition
(although there were worse sets or rules in that regard).
Almost everyone has missed the point. We are OUT OF TIME. This is just
damage control.
All that's being discussed here is that it's easier to defend:
@pure, @nothrow, @safe
than:
pure, nothow, @safe
And I'm arguing that we have a consensus on that.
Fine, then go ahead and make the changes. Why do we need a weird rule to
make the changes? Can't we determine a rule later (is that not what we
are doing now)? Does the rule need to be in the book? I think just make
the changes, and we can determine a rule later, when people start asking
about it.
BTW, I'm in favor of the change, I couldn't care less about the rule.
Arbitrariness is inherent in any language design based on English. I like
how @word applies to the function without affecting the signature, it's
more of a hint to the compiler. The fact that you can't override a
function based on @pure or @nothrow seals the deal for me.
-Steve
