On Tuesday, 8 October 2013 at 23:22:54 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
On Oct 8, 2013, at 3:38 PM, Walter Bright
This, of course, is the other problem with @nogc. Having a
forest of attributes on otherwise ordinary functions is
awfully ugly.
And we already have a forest of attributes on otherwise
ordinary functions.
I don't understand why there is such reluctance to have many
attributes. I'd gladly accept language with literally hundreds of
those if they are orthogonal and useful. That is the very point
of using strong typed language - making compiler verify as much
assumptions as possible for you. Key problem here is not amount
of attributes but that those are opt-in, not opt-out,
