On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 at 01:31:07 UTC, Jonathan Marler
wrote:
Yes you're right it adds more inconsistency (sorry what I said
was wrong). However, no matter what solution you choose you
have to choose one of two evils. Either add inconsistency or
break code. There's no way around it. If you ADD another way
to write the attributes that looks better, you've created more
"inconsistency". If you REPLACE the existing way to write
attributes, you've now broken code.
The third way is to do nothing, and live with the existing
inconsistency. It's not a bad choice, considering.
So again, I was suggesting one way of implementing my proposal
which was to add an inconsistency, but you could implement it
another way but you would have to break code. Do you have a
solution that doesn't do either? I think if you try to find
one, you'll see that I'm right in saying you're going to have
to choose one or the other.
I already suggested the best solution I could come up with: break
code in the most benign possible manner, using a
compiler-integrated 'dfix' experience. BTW, I'm glad you agree
with me about the ugliness of the @ sign. Even with dfix, the
decision could still be made to have everything use @'s, which
would be a solution to the consistency problem, but I would only
welcome it grudgingly. Good looking code is important to me, and
@ is *not* where that's @, so to say. :-)
