On Tuesday, 18 December 2018 at 11:25:17 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
Of course, even if we _did_ have a solution for reversing
attributes, slapping an attribute on the top of the module
would still potentially be a maintenance problem, because it's
then really easy to miss that an attribute is in effect (it's a
problem that we've had on several occasions with druntime and
Phobos in the few cases where attributes are mass-applied). So,
there is no silver bullet here (though regardless of whether
mass-applying attributes is something that should ever be
considered good practice, we really should add a way to be able
to reverse them).
Thanks Jonathan for your elaborate explanation. I personally have
no problem with the attributes which - in practice - means I
don't use them much unless I want to make sure something is nogc,
for example. For library designers it makes sense to be explicit.
I guess that is where the trade-off kicks in. Maybe it is just a
feature. We argue against specifying them because other languages
are not as explicit. It does add a little noise.
