On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 19:07:59 UTC, Jonathan Marler
wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 18:54:29 UTC, Zach the Mystic
wrote:
I think a keyword is a keyword is a keyword. If it's a keyword
to the right it should be one everywhere. How is somethign
that's a built-in attribute one place and an identifier in
another not context sensitive. Walter said that `exit`, `C++`,
i.e. `scope(exit)`, `extern (C++)` etc. were never keywords,
but I disagree. They are indeed context sensitive keywords.
They have wisely been kept to a minimum. They are just
confusing to reason about, except in the most strictly
confined places, where they are now. I think that's why
they're out of the question. They have wisely been kept to a
minimum.
This is actually a valid argument against my proposal. Thank
you! lol. I don't agree with it but at least it's valid :)
Your reasoning depends on how you define a keyword. You seem
to be defining a keyword in terms of an identifier that is
recognized by the compiler to have a special meaning. I define
a keyword as a word that the lexer recognizes as a keyword
token.
I see what you mean by saying that the word is a function
attribute in one place and an identifier in another. But
what's wrong with that? if I define a struct named
mystruct...I could declare one like this:
mystruct mystruct;
It's utterly confusing is the problem. I would consider it a
great disservice to all D programmers to allow this. Just because
you can doesn't mean you should. Walter has emphasize there is
absolutely no shortage of valid words. There is however, a
shortage of what a programmer can keep organized in his head.
That's the shortage you should prioritize, sir. I'm not sure how
to emphasize this anymore. We may just have to agree to disagree.
