On Thursday, September 6, 2018 3:11:14 AM MDT Dechcaudron via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Wednesday, 5 September 2018 at 11:39:31 UTC, Jonathan M Davis > > wrote: > > Conceptually, what Timon is talking about doing here is to add > > an attribute to symbols declared within a static foreach where > > that attribute indicates that the symbol is temporary (or at > > least scoped to a particular iteration of the loop). So, saying > > that it's "local" as __local would makes perfect sense. It's > > local to that iteration of the loop. > > > > And there may very well be other syntaxes which would be > > better, but trying to overload the meaning of static even > > further by using it in this context would risk code breakage > > and would be _very_ confusing for most people. > > You are right, using "static" would be confusing I guess. I'm > just against starting to use __keywords reserved to the compiler > that maybe shouldn't be. I know we already have __gshared, > though. Just what is the criteria to prepend the double > underscore to a keyword? Why now just use an @attribute instead? > @gshared and @ctlocal would fit better in the D style, IMO.
__ can be used for any identifier that is reserved by the compiler. There have been identifiers which start with __ since the language began, whereas attributes are a later edition to the language. And regardless of whether @gshared would make sense, __gshared predates attributes, so there's no way that it would be @gshared. However, since attributes are applied to functions, and __gshared is for variables, it really wouldn't make sense to have @gshared, and by that same token, it wouldn't make sense to have @ctlocal. - Jonathan M Davis
