On 2010-02-28 10:06:39 -0500, Don <[email protected]> said:
Sönke Ludwig wrote:
I would also tend to agree that this set of rules is a bit arbitrary
and seems a bit like some overfitted classifier in pattern recognition
(although there were worse sets or rules in that regard).
Almost everyone has missed the point. We are OUT OF TIME. This is just
damage control.
There was more than one point in your original argumentation... here
are a few ones:
1. We should have a rationale for what is an attribute and what is not.
This one I agree.
2. You proposed a rationale: I think your proposed rationale is bad.
3. pure and nothrow should become @pure and @nothrow. I don't see
anyone contesting that.
Have I so much missed the point? I know we're sorta out of time. But
please understand that damage control by trying to justify the
unjustifiable can be worse than the damage itself. I support the
proposed changes, but not your proposed overcomplicated rationale for
them.
If you want a rationale, I think it'd be fine to say that attributes
are things you can ignore because they only have a restrictive effect
on the semantics (the definition you said you invented). Then mention
there is an exception: @property.
The only other worthwhile question is whether we have a concensus on
@deprecated. We might.
I don't know about others, but I'm for it.
--
Michel Fortin
[email protected]
http://michelf.com/
