On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 19:04:41 UTC, Henrik wrote:
On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 15:45:09 UTC, Jonathan Marler
wrote:
On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 15:25:32 UTC, aberba wrote:
On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 14:31:20 UTC, Jonathan
Marler wrote:
On Saturday, 22 September 2018 at 13:25:27 UTC, rikki
cattermole wrote:
Then D isn't the right choice for you.
I think it makes for a better community if we can be more
welcoming, helpful a gracious instead of responding to
criticism this way. This is someone who saw enough potential
with D to end up on the forums but had some gripes with it,
after all who doesn't? I'm glad he took the initiative to
provide us with good feedback, and he's not the first to
take issue with the inconsistent '@' attribute syntax. I'm
sure everyone can agree this inconsistency is less than
ideal but that doesn't mean D isn't right for them and we
should respond this feedback like this with thanks rather
than dismissal.
That inconsistency is an issue for me. I wish there a clear
decision to make things consistent.
Yeah there's been alot of discussion around it over the years,
which is why I put this together about 4 years ago:
https://wiki.dlang.org/Language_Designs_Explained#Function_attributes
Gosh I've forgotten how long I've been using D.
Interesting article.
"int safe = 0; // This code would break if "safe" was added as
a keyword"
My question here: why didn't D use a similar solution as C when
dealing with these things? Look at the introduction of the bool
datatype in C99. They created the compiler reserved type
"_Bool" and put "typedef _Bool bool" in "stdbool.h". The people
wanting to use this new feature can include this header, and
other can leave it be. No ugly "@" polluting the language on
every line where it's used. Wouldn't a similar solution have
been possible in D?
That works for types but wouldn't work for keywords. Keywords
have special meaning in the lexical stage and you can't
extend/change the grammar of the language via an alias or
typedef. You could do something like this with a preprocessor
but then you run into all sorts of other problems (i.e. #define
safe @safe).
If you come up with other ideas then feel free to share. No one
likes the current state but no one has come up with a good
solution yet.
