On 2015-04-17 21:35, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
UDA's were available when these attributes/keywords were created.
Reasons why they're still not UDA's are probably a mix of avoiding code
breakage and someone that needs to make the change.
Were _not_ available ...
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On 2015-04-17 16:34, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
+1 for body
I still haven't got the reason though, why "safe" and friends cannot
simply be UDAs defined in object.d that the compiler recognizes.
UDA's were available when these attributes/keywords were created.
Reasons why they're still not UDA's are
Am 15.04.2015 um 18:59 schrieb ketmar:
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 08:53:05 +, Andrea Fontana wrote:
My 2 cents. If I remember correctly, "@" prefix in @safe, @trusted,
@system, etc was added just to avoid keywords pollution, right?
Now UDA uses the same prefix: if some new keywords/properties/att
On Thursday, 16 April 2015 at 20:09:07 UTC, Vlad Levenfeld wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 April 2015 at 16:59:12 UTC, ketmar wrote:
or make "safe" and company "context keywords". along with
"body" (oh, how
i hate the unabilily to declare "body" member!")
Ugh, yeah. Makes physics code awkward.
And
On Wednesday, 15 April 2015 at 16:59:12 UTC, ketmar wrote:
or make "safe" and company "context keywords". along with
"body" (oh, how
i hate the unabilily to declare "body" member!")
Ugh, yeah. Makes physics code awkward.
On Wed, 15 Apr 2015 08:53:05 +, Andrea Fontana wrote:
> My 2 cents. If I remember correctly, "@" prefix in @safe, @trusted,
> @system, etc was added just to avoid keywords pollution, right?
>
> Now UDA uses the same prefix: if some new keywords/properties/attributes
> will be added to D, the
On 2015-04-15 10:53, Andrea Fontana wrote:
My 2 cents. If I remember correctly, "@" prefix in @safe, @trusted,
@system, etc was added just to avoid keywords pollution, right?
Now UDA uses the same prefix: if some new keywords/properties/attributes
will be added to D, the same problem will come b
My 2 cents. If I remember correctly, "@" prefix in @safe,
@trusted, @system, etc was added just to avoid keywords
pollution, right?
Now UDA uses the same prefix: if some new
keywords/properties/attributes will be added to D, the same
problem will come back again... Is it a crazy idea to depre