On Thursday, 15 December 2016 at 15:31:40 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
> On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 20:27:36 UTC, Meta wrote:
>> On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 11:33:40 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
>>> DIP 1003 is faddish. It would really be better to have a system that would allow any keyword to be used as identifier. An escape system is the key.
>>
>> It would also guarantee that the DIP would not be accepted. With this DIP I aimed
>
> Sorry in a previous post there's been a confusion from my part, I thought the author was "Cauterite".
>
>> for the smallest possible change that would alleviate the problem of not being able to use `body` as a symbol name, hoping that the smallness of the problem and ease of implementation would make it much more likely to be accepted.
>
> I won't insist too much but to be clear, the escape solution is incredibly simple to implement (7 SLOC !). I've decided to go further in order to demonstrate it:
>
> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6324

Switch from # to @ and even the guys here are satisfied: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/fiwfcsqmjsndcjixipgz@forum.dlang.org

Two birds - one stone (;

On Thursday, 15 December 2016 at 18:44:42 UTC, Namespace wrote:
> On Thursday, 15 December 2016 at 15:31:40 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
>> On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 20:27:36 UTC, Meta wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 11:33:40 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
>>>> DIP 1003 is faddish. It would really be better to have a system that would allow any keyword to be used as identifier. An escape system is the key.
>>>
>>> It would also guarantee that the DIP would not be accepted. With this DIP I aimed
>>
>> Sorry in a previous post there's been a confusion from my part, I thought the author was "Cauterite".
>>
>>> for the smallest possible change that would alleviate the problem of not being able to use `body` as a symbol name, hoping that the smallness of the problem and ease of implementation would make it much more likely to be accepted.
>>
>> I won't insist too much but to be clear, the escape solution is incredibly simple to implement (7 SLOC !). I've decided to go further in order to demonstrate it:
>>
>> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6324
>
> Switch from # to @ and even the guys here are satisfied: http://forum.dlang.org/thread/fiwfcsqmjsndcjixipgz@forum.dlang.org

Irony I suppose ?

> Two birds - one stone (;

Exactly...If # is used to make function attributes (like in point 4 of http://forum.dlang.org/post/lllbfrmrhsjafijloadg@forum.dlang.org) then #const like in PR 6324 doesn't work...anyway one of the idea is more concrete than the other. ;)

On Thursday, 15 December 2016 at 15:31:40 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
> On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 20:27:36 UTC, Meta wrote:
>> On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 11:33:40 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
>>> DIP 1003 is faddish. It would really be better to have a system that would allow any keyword to be used as identifier. An escape system is the key.
>>
>> It would also guarantee that the DIP would not be accepted. With this DIP I aimed
>
> Sorry in a previous post there's been a confusion from my part, I thought the author was "Cauterite".
>
>> for the smallest possible change that would alleviate the problem of not being able to use `body` as a symbol name, hoping that the smallness of the problem and ease of implementation would make it much more likely to be accepted.
>
> I won't insist too much but to be clear, the escape solution is incredibly simple to implement (7 SLOC !). I've decided to go further in order to demonstrate it:
>
> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6324

I saw your PR but I don't really agree that it's a good solution. If you have to preface the symbol with # then you might as well just use a trailing underscore, like "body_".

On Thursday, 15 December 2016 at 21:19:30 UTC, Meta wrote:
> On Thursday, 15 December 2016 at 15:31:40 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
>> On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 20:27:36 UTC, Meta wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 11 December 2016 at 11:33:40 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
>>>> DIP 1003 is faddish. It would really be better to have a system that would allow any keyword to be used as identifier. An escape system is the key.
>>>
>>> It would also guarantee that the DIP would not be accepted. With this DIP I aimed
>>
>> Sorry in a previous post there's been a confusion from my part, I thought the author was "Cauterite".
>>
>>> for the smallest possible change that would alleviate the problem of not being able to use `body` as a symbol name, hoping that the smallness of the problem and ease of implementation would make it much more likely to be accepted.
>>
>> I won't insist too much but to be clear, the escape solution is incredibly simple to implement (7 SLOC !). I've decided to go further in order to demonstrate it:
>>
>> https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/6324
>
> I saw your PR but I don't really agree that it's a good solution. If you have to preface the symbol with # then you might as well just use a trailing underscore, like "body_".

No, there are 2 differences.

- 1: even if in the source you write #body, the identifier, as known by the compiler, is really just "body", like shown in the test that uses `pragma(identifier)`. For example a serializer would write "body" without any kind of processing (unlike what 's to be done using the basic underscore solution).

- 2: the underscore is a valid identifier char, # is not so you cannot distinguish a keyword suffixed with an underscore because it might be intentional, i.e part of the identifier.

On Saturday, 19 November 2016 at 21:16:15 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
> DIP 1003 is merged to the queue and open for public informal feedback.
>
> PR: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/48
> Initial merged document: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1003.md
>
> If you want the change to be approved and have ideas how to improve it to better match on https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/GUIDELINES.md and existing published reviews - please submit new PR with editorial and ping original author.

Bump, if that makes sense.

On Saturday, 31 December 2016 at 01:14:23 UTC, Arun Chandrasekaran wrote:
> On Saturday, 19 November 2016 at 21:16:15 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>> DIP 1003 is merged to the queue and open for public informal feedback.
>>
>> PR: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/48
>> Initial merged document: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1003.md
>>
>> If you want the change to be approved and have ideas how to improve it to better match on https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/GUIDELINES.md and existing published reviews - please submit new PR with editorial and ping original author.
>
> Bump, if that makes sense.

I have asked DIP author if he plans any last moment modifications and will try to schedule it for review in January.