On Monday, October 17, 2016 14:12:33 timepp via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
> there is "@disable", using @ as prefix;
> there is "__gshared", using __ as prefix;
> there is also "align", not using prefix.
> I failed to summarize a rule here. Can anyone tell the underlined
> philosiphy?

There really isn't one. __gshared is probably the way that it is, because
it's not something much of anything but C bindings should be using (it
exists solely for compatibility with C global variables). So, it's treated
as a compiler thing (like __traits) rather than a normal attribute.

But as for @, what that pretty much comes down to is that Walter didn't want
to add more keywords. So, new ones got @ put on them (and all of this was
well before user defined attributes came along).

In general, folks don't like the fact that there is no consistency between
what has @ and what doesn't, but no one can come up with a scheme that's
actually fully consistent (at least, not without slapping @ on all
attributes or having it on none), and it would break a ton of code if any of
them were changed now, so it's highly unlikely that any of them will ever

So, you just learn which ones have @ and which don't, and then it mostly
doesn't matter anymore, as annoying as it may be from an aesthetic point of

- Jonathan M Davis

Reply via email to