Don wrote:
> I genuinely thought @pure, @nothrow was a no-brainer.
>
> I really thought the explanation that "we made all attibutes use the @
> form, except those where it was prevented by historical precedent" was
> quite defensible.
>
> But I was very, very wrong. Looks like the community is giving a massive
> vote for complete unpredictability.
>
> <Throws hands in air />
>
I didn't see anyone contest @pure or @nothrow in this thread. What
several people (including me) contest is the ridiculous
pseudo-rationale you've given. "For historical reasons" is a good
enough rationale to explain why some attributes (like "private")
don't use the @ syntax while others do. No need to drag C/C++ into
this...
Jerome
--
mailto:[email protected]
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
