On Saturday, 28 December 2013 at 15:27:36 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
Thanks for this perspective, this makes the distinction between
integrity and functionality fuzzy. I am not sure if I like that
or the effect it has on debugging/programming-in-large… I
prefer languages that conceptually and visually try to separate
different layers (e.g. the job of "lint" and the job of
"code-generation").
This is a solid approach and rationale behind trying to minimize
warnings in D as much as possible (and potentially remove at all
once standard lint-like tool will appear).
However it looks like you are mistaken in considering elements
from your examples belonging to additional analysis layer.
Anything that directly impacts basic semantical correctness of
program is business of compiler core. Defining additional tokens
that are invisible to introspection and supposed to be used only
by lints may be useful but is not worth discussing until at least
on such tool will mature.
Usage of "@" for new keywords is just a matter of avoiding name
clashes with existing user code.
