On 6 November 2012 21:53, Walter Bright <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote: > On 11/6/2012 1:41 PM, deadalnix wrote: >> >> Le 06/11/2012 22:02, Jonathan M Davis a écrit : >>> >>> On Tuesday, November 06, 2012 11:18:34 Walter Bright wrote: >>>> >>>> No hitting below the belt! Let the games begin! >>> >>> >>> Definitely @(ArgumentList). It fits with what other languages do, and it >>> matches >>> what we're already doing for attributes. I also think that's what pretty >>> much >>> everyone was figuring would be used for user-defined attributes. The only >>> major >>> problem would be if @ArgumentList is allowed when there's only a single >>> argument, then code could break when new built-in attributes are added. >>> >> >> Can you explain that code breakage ? > > > C++11 has had problems adding new keywords, as about every identifier > somewhere has been used by someone's C++ source code, and they don't want to > break existing code. So C++11 winds up with awful things like "decltype".
*cough* _Static_Assert *cough* -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
