On Monday, 26 January 2015 at 21:12:50 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/26/2015 12:45 PM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
Just because they are function attributes does not mean
they were tokenized as "keywords".
The lexer has no idea what a function attribute is or that now
it should be looking for attributes and then it should not be.
I feel like I keep repeating myself so I'm just going to
copy/paste.
If the grammar supported decorating a function with a list of id
tokens (not just keywords), then you could implement a variation
on the c++ solution of allowing "override" and "final" after a
function signature.
The lexer would recognize these attributes as normal ID tokens.
The grammar could be amended to allow a function to be decorated
with keywords and generic id tokens. Then the meaning of those
tokens would be handled by semantic analysis. So the result
would be that the lexer would see "nogc" and "safe" as normal id
tokens (not keywords) which would be consumed as function
attributes by the grammar. As far as I can tell this results in
the best of both worlds. We can omit the '@' character on
function attributes like safe and nogc but they don't have to be
added as keywords.
