On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 at 00:57:24 UTC, Jonathan Marler
wrote:
On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 at 00:44:14 UTC, Zach the Mystic
3. Singularity of usage also matters. There should only be one
way to mark a given attribute, either with or without `@`.
I agree that the proposal doesn't solve the consistency issue,
but the proposal doesn't make things more inconsistent then
they already are. It adds another way to write these
attributes, but it adds a way that makes more sense in my
opinion. This is a step in the right direction in solving the
problem. The next step would be to solve the consistency
issue, but again, that's another debate. To conclude, which
code would you rather write?
The consistency issue is precisely that there should not be more
than one way to write an attribute. Note that that's precisely
where most of the opposition to this thread's original proposal
came from. Uniformity means never having to explain to anybody
why there is more than one way to do something. Both this
thread's proposal and your proposal *introduce* inconsistency in
this way.
void myfunc() pure @safe nothrow @nogc;
void myfunc() pure safe nothrow nogc;
This will inevitably result in someone writing this:
pure safe nothrow nogc void myfunc();
which would still be invalid in this proposal, and I think this
is still a problem but not a huge one since this is easily
caught by the compiler.
This will annoy people even more than they are already annoyed by
the `@`-on-some-attributes-and-not-others inconsistency. The
latter type (type 2 in my first thread) already exists in the
language, but it shoudln't be replaced by another type. This
argument was already made by Jonathan Davis.
