On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:12 AM, bearophile<[email protected]> wrote: > Bill Baxter: >> Now we may not want to go so hog wild putting @this and @that >> everywhere, but if we did we could get rid of 19 keywords right there, >> and add @property also without adding a new keyword. > > Glad to see I'm not the only one to think like this :-) > Later more semantic attributes can be added, for example to express things > that the compiler can use to parallelize code better, to know about pointer > aliasing, to tell the compiler what asm functions can be inlined (currently > done with a pragma in LDC), etc. > > What syntax do you want to use when you want more than one attribute? > @something1 @somethingelse > ...
I don't know. I'm actually not too up on how these things are used in the languages where they exist (just Java, Python, and C#?). It just seems like a good idea to solve a more general problem if possible. And when someone reminded us that "deprecated" is a keyword, that set me off. Something else that occurred to me while reading the keyword list is that "switch" is a horrible keyword hog. Three keywords just for that one construct! If D didn't have a switch statement today and were looking to add one, somehow I doubt that there would be sufficient support for dedicating three whole keywords to the thing. Switch is a monstrosity pretty much any way you look at it. Sh had the right idea there. Is "case" really necessary there? Some syntax should suffice I would thing. And "default" is probably the world's most useless keyword. Why not "else:" or "*:" instead of introducing a whole new keyword? --bb
