On Thursday, 29 January 2015 at 15:10:12 UTC, Jonathan Marler
wrote:
On Thursday, 29 January 2015 at 10:43:37 UTC, matovitch wrote:
On Thursday, 29 January 2015 at 10:38:46 UTC, matovitch wrote:
On Thursday, 29 January 2015 at 10:34:37 UTC, matovitch wrote:
On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 22:32:55 UTC, Jonathan
Marler wrote:
Why don't we make all the function attributes keywords?
-----------------------------------------------------------
As a newbie, I would have asked the reversed question :
Why don't we make all the function attributes attributes?
To be clear, what are the avantages of keywords vs attributes
? Why should the most used function attributes be keywords ?
"In theory, the increased consistency is welcome, but the
increased visual
noise definitely is not. And if we leave in pure and nothrow
without @,
then we're going to have code out there doing both, which adds
to the
confusion, and if we deprecate pure and nothrow without @,
then we'll be
forced to change pretty much every D program in existence." JM
Davis
Ok !
I'm not sure I understand your question.
Why don't we make all the function attributes attributes?
Is this what you mean? "Why don't we require an '@' symbol
before all function attributes?"
Yes, if @ttributes are better because you can create identifier
with the same name why aren't they used everywhere ? By the way,
the denomination makes sense too : function attibutes are either
built-in or user defined attributes. But const can be a qualifier
or a function/method attribute that is two very different
things...maybe not beeing able to use const as a function
attribute but @const would make more sense ?
