On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 06:59:52 +0000, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Wednesday, 4 February 2015 at 05:20:30 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> there. i still can't see what's wrong with `@attribute("inline")`,
>> `@attribute("force_inline")` and so on. ah, except it breaks one of the
>> first rules in The Book Of D: "try to escape uniformity whenever it is
>> possible".
>
> Using pragmas for inlining is common in compilers for other clean
> languages (Ada, Haskell).
>
> Unless inlining affects the ability to use functions as actual
> parameters it is not part of the language and therefore a pragma,
> but I agree that the pragma syntax is ugly, but "@attribute" is also
> ugly.
>
> Maybe better to reserve "@_word" so that they cannot be used for UDA and
> let all pragmas start with "@_":
>
> @_inline(0) // never, inline_weight*0 => 0 @_inline(1) // default,
> inline_weight*1 => inline_weight @_inline(Inf) // always,
> inline_weight*Inf => Inf @_inline // same as @_inline(Inf)
using `@attribute("...")` is ugly, but it has the advantage of simple
workarounding for compilers that still not supporting that attribute.
plus, it allows things like `@attribute("...") { ... }` or `@attribute
("..."):` on module level, whereas `pragma` isn't.
as for uglyness... it's too late to thing about this. one more, one
less... ;-)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
