Le 08/11/2012 02:48, Walter Bright a écrit :
On 11/7/2012 4:03 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 11/7/12 10:24 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/7/2012 11:40 AM, Jonas Drewsen wrote:
I we were to allow for @foobar style UDA then "safe" would have to be
a reserved
keyword somehow. Otherwise I do not know what this would mean:
struct safe { }
@safe void foobar() { }
Yes, I agree this is a significant problem.
I think it's solvable. The basic approach would be to plop types "safe",
"nothrow" etc. in object.di and then let them just behave like all
other arguments.
Consider that if we do that, then someone will need to disambiguate with:
@object.safe
which is ambiguous:
@a.b .c x = 3;
or is it:
@a .b.c x = 3;
?
Another problem is it pushes off recognition of @safe from the parser to
the semantic analyzer. This has unknown forward reference complications.
How didn't see that coming. I never was a big fan of .identifier syntax
for module level stuff.
However, you example isn't quite correct. Attributes are for symbols,
and your example don't create any new symbol.
Let's consider @a.b .c d = 3;
Now, we have several option to disambiguate that. The first, obvious one
is to use () : @(a.b) .c d = 3; .
When not using (), the compiler understand this as @(a.b.c) d = 3; which
is an error.
Another option is to use auto : @a.b auto d = .c(3);
Anyway, I don't expect this to break too much code, if any.
