On Thursday, 15 December 2016 at 18:44:42 UTC, Namespace wrote:
On Thursday, 15 December 2016 at 15:31:40 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 20:27:36 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 11:33:40 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
DIP 1003 is faddish. It would really be better to have a system that would allow any keyword to be used as identifier. An escape system is the key.

It would also guarantee that the DIP would not be accepted. With this DIP I aimed

Sorry in a previous post there's been a confusion from my part, I thought the author was "Cauterite".

for the smallest possible change that would alleviate the problem of not being able to use `body` as a symbol name, hoping that the smallness of the problem and ease of implementation would make it much more likely to be accepted.

I won't insist too much but to be clear, the escape solution is incredibly simple to implement (7 SLOC !). I've decided to go further in order to demonstrate it:


Switch from # to @ and even the guys here are satisfied: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/fiwfcsqmjsndcjixi...@forum.dlang.org

Irony I suppose ?

Two birds - one stone (;

Exactly...If # is used to make function attributes (like in point 4 of http://forum.dlang.org/post/lllbfrmrhsjafijlo...@forum.dlang.org) then #const like in PR 6324 doesn't work...anyway one of the idea is more concrete than the other. ;)

Reply via email to