On Friday, 18 August 2017 at 01:43:42 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[...]
- Jonathan M Davis
Makes sense to me.
The first question that comes to mind is if the extra generality
provided by DIP 1012 is actually useful, let alone, worth
breaking changes. The rationale section of the DIP only mentions
negating attributes, which is easily accomplished with what I
suggested. Unless that section is expanded with additional
practical use cases, then it doesn't seem worth the trouble to me.
The DIP mentions tagging a module declaration with default
attributes. If the whole purpose of the DIP is to allow for
negating attributes, why would you even need this change, when
the DIP would effectively make it ok to put "@nogc: @safe: @etc:"
at the top of the file?
My suggestion does not cover "inferred" as discussed in the DIP,
but that could be achieved by letting something like "@default"
reset all attributes for a given symbol.
I'll concede that DIP1012 makes more logical sense than the
current state of things, but it seems like something that would
be best achieved during a transition to a subsequent language
version. It seems commonplace here, to discard suggestions based
on their current viability, when it may be better to add them to
a feature backlog that could be considered when talking about the
possibility of a D3.
