On 2010-02-26 17:48:05 -0500, "Jérôme M. Berger" <[email protected]> said:
I didn't see anyone contest @pure or @nothrow in this thread. What
several people (including me) contest is the ridiculous
pseudo-rationale you've given. "For historical reasons" is a good
enough rationale to explain why some attributes (like "private")
don't use the @ syntax while others do. No need to drag C/C++ into
this...
Same here, not contesting @pure or @nothrow.
I'd prefer to see a rationale based on a simple principle. Creating a
few twisted principles to justify what we have now is worse than having
none in my opinion. Lets be honest with ourselves and accept that it's
like this for historical reasons, and be done with it.
--
Michel Fortin
[email protected]
http://michelf.com/
