On 1/28/15 10:37 AM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 18:27:34 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/28/15 10:19 AM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 17:52:56 UTC, Mike wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 17:41:54 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
PLUS, this would be very simple to implement!
Then I recommend you submit a pull request.
Mike
I would but Walter said no. I'm certain he misunderstood my proposal
and I tried to explain it to him but I couldn't get him to address it.
Was that the proposal leading to this state of affairs (quoting from
your post on 2015/01/26 16:05 PST?
Here's what would change
-----------------------------------------------------------------
void myfunc() nogc; // VALID (Only if this proposal is accepted)
void myfunc() safe; // VALID (Only if this proposal is accepted)
Here's what WOULD NOT change
-----------------------------------------------------------------
nogc myfunc(); // STILL INVALID: invalid unless it can be verified
// that this wouldn't result in ambiguity
// in the grammar
void myfunc() @nogc; // STILL VALID (no change)
@nogc myfunc(); // STILL VALID (no change)
Andrei
You can follow this thread:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/[email protected]
I explained my proposal 3 or 4 times but each time Walter seemed to be
misunderstanding my proposal saying it was going to create
"context-sensitive" tokens and so he would immediately dismiss it. I
tried to understand what he meant by "context-sensitive" tokens because
my proposal didn't have anything to do with them (at least my definition
of them), but even after he defined them my proposal clearly does not
create them.
Walter "[A context-sensitive token is] A keyword in one context and an
identifier in another"
Anyway, I'll restate my proposal again:
1. Modify the SYNTAX of function to allow it to be decorated with
IDENTIFIER tokens on the right hand side
void foo() x; // valid SYNTAX (note: has not semantic meaning)
void foo() safe; // valid SYNTAX and valid SEMANTICS
2. Modify the code that interprets the syntax tree to recognize these
identifiers as function attributes.
A simple solution that would allow us to standardize where we put the
function attributes and allow us to remove the '@' character from all
non-keyword function attributes. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
That's not a misunderstanding. Your proposal has been understood. It can
be made to work. That doesn't necessarily make it desirable. I don't
think it's particularly helpful and Walter is against it, so simply put
it won't happen. Let it go. Thanks for it and keep the good ideas
coming. -- Andrei
