On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 15:37:28 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 15:16:50 via Digitalmars-d wrote:
We could also remove @ from all of the attributes, and then
that would be
"completely consistent," because then only UDAs will have @ on
them. But the
next time that we need to add a new attribute (which will
hopefully be rare,
but it happens sometimes - e.g. with @nogc recently), then we'd
have to add
a new keyword to avoid making things inconsistent, which would
likely break
existing code. So, more likely, we'd just tack @ onto it (which
can still
break code, but only UDA-specific code, so the breakage would
be far more
minimal), and we'd be right back where we are now.
I would love this, and I would be fine with the breakage costs,
speaking for myself.
About the problem of add more attributes in the future: well,
maybe that solution will put a rubber floor on the number of
attributes that can be added, as they are already a big number
really....
It would be interesting an implementation of both the solutions,
and recompile a bunch of big projects out from the registry with
dub, just to finally move the discussion on numbers instead of
"likely would break a lot / lot more / not so much breakage /
etc" ...
I know the reply: help us trying out instead of writing! ;-P ;-P
---
Paolo
