On 30 August 2013 15:48, Dicebot <[email protected]> wrote: > On Friday, 30 August 2013 at 14:43:12 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> >> You should create a DIP to start a formal review process for this. > > > You have forgot the part about writing pull request and providing > deprecation path (emo)
The compiler frontend implementation allowing bogus or conflicting pre/post attributes as no-ops is nothing new (bearophile has been documenting all wrong/confusing cases since 2010). So keeping what was a no-op as a no-op for the time being can't hurt too much. Haven't read all posts but am I right in assuming that the compiler will correctly warn for post attributes, but clears pre attributes silently? -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
