Fix issue 14064 - Error message about @ attributes incomplete

[dkorpel]

Ideally, I would think that the error message would treat the problem a bit like happens with a spelling error for variables, and ask if you meant deprecated instead of @deprecated - at least as long as @deprecated hasn't been declared as a UDA anyway

I've made the @deprecated mistake before as well. For this fix I just check any keyword in case someone accidentally writes @nothrow or @pure. The message doesn't straight up suggest a replacement because e.g. suggesting foreach instead of @foreach in a function signature is nonsensical.

[dlang-bot]

Thanks for your pull request and interest in making D better, @dkorpel! We are looking forward to reviewing it, and you should be hearing from a maintainer soon.
Please verify that your PR follows this checklist:

• My PR is fully covered with tests (you can see the coverage diff by visiting the details link of the codecov check)
• My PR is as minimal as possible (smaller, focused PRs are easier to review than big ones)
• I have provided a detailed rationale explaining my changes
• New or modified functions have Ddoc comments (with Params: and Returns:)

Please see CONTRIBUTING.md for more information.

---

If you have addressed all reviews or aren't sure how to proceed, don't hesitate to ping us with a simple comment.

Bugzilla references

Auto-close	Bugzilla	Severity	Description
✓	14064	minor	Error message about @ attributes incomplete.

Testing this PR locally

If you don't have a local development environment setup, you can use Digger to test this PR:

dub run digger -- build "master + dmd#12852"

[MoonlightSentinel]

Nice. not an @ attribute sounds redundant, maybe a hint to remove the leading @ would be better (at least for the cases that refer to nothrow, ...)

[dkorpel]

not an @ attribute sounds redundant

I disagree. I'd consider '@' as just "an @", and pure as just "an attribute", but only @nogc as "an @ attribute".

maybe a hint to remove the leading @ would be better (at least for the cases that refer to nothrow, ...)

I don't want the error message logic to become complex, I rather just treat all keywords the same in the error message.

[MoonlightSentinel]

I disagree. I'd consider '@' as just "an @", and pure as just "an attribute", but only @nogc as "an @ attribute".

Fair enough, the spec also refers to pure and nothrow as attributes.