[Issue 13388] accept '@' before 'nothrow' and 'pure' (page 4)

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13388 --- Comment #30 from Ketmar Dark <ketmar@ketmar.no-ip.org> --- wow. so i was right. let's see how long it took for my other suggestions to become blessed. --

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13388 Nick Treleaven <ntrel-pub@mybtinternet.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ntrel-pub@mybtinternet.com --- Comment #31 from Nick Treleaven <ntrel-pub@mybtinternet.com> --- (In reply to Jonathan M Davis from comment #28) > Regardless, I don't see any way that changing which attributes have @ on them and which don't is going to make it consistent unless you put @ on all of them, or you don't put it on any of them. The simplest consistent change would be to have built-in @attributes when they *only affect* functions, not variables. Then we don't need @const or @ref, as they can also affect variables/parameters. We would have @pure, @nothrow, @override, @abstract, @final ('@final class' only affects a class's methods, not variable members). 'return' would not be an attribute, as it can affect parameters. Using this guideline, we only have to change 5 attributes. --

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13388 --- Comment #32 from Sobirari Muhomori <dfj1esp02@sneakemail.com> --- Automated migration from keyword syntax to attribute syntax can be done by dfix. Then attribute syntax can be enforced if needed. --

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13388 --- Comment #33 from Jonathan M Davis <issues.dlang@jmdavisProg.com> --- (In reply to Sobirari Muhomori from comment #32) > Automated migration from keyword syntax to attribute syntax can be done by dfix. Then attribute syntax can be enforced if needed. I don't think that that's really the problem. The problem is that no proposal has been given which really makes the attribute names consistent in a way that makes sense to actually change to. We may agree that the status quo is ugly, but how things should be changed is not at all clear. So, we don't even know how we'd want to change the language to fix the attribute situation. And even if dfix makes it easy to change code, breaking code still causes problems. So, while dfix will definitely help reduce the pain when we do decide to make changes to the language which will require changing existing code, it doesn't make the language changes free. The fact that dfix could make it easy to change existing code does not mean that it's okay to make breaking changes without a very good reason behind them. --

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13388 Sobirari Muhomori <dfj1esp02@sneakemail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED Resolution|FIXED |--- --- Comment #34 from Sobirari Muhomori <dfj1esp02@sneakemail.com> --- https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/4349 The discussion was inconclusive? --

March 25, 2015

[Issue 13388] accept '@' before 'nothrow' and 'pure'

Posted by Jonathan M Davis

Permalink

Jonathan M Davis

Permalink

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13388

--- Comment #35 from Jonathan M Davis <issues.dlang@jmdavisProg.com> ---
(In reply to Sobirari Muhomori from comment #34)
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/4349
> The discussion was inconclusive?

The change was reverted, though I don't know how conclusive the discussion that resulted was. Walter seemed to want to discuss it primarily so that we could close this as "won't fix" and move on (though I'm not sure that he was entirely against the idea), and Andrei definitely seemed to think that messing around with @ was a waste of time, but I don't think that it was ever definitively said what we'd do about it other than the fact that we'd revert the change until we were sure that we wanted to make it. Certainly, there was no consensus that this change should be made, and if anything, I think that the discussion leaned towards not making it, even aside from what Walter and Andrei thought, but I'd have to reread the thread to be sure of the details at this point.

So, I'd say that this is almost certainly a "won't fix," but to be 100% sure, Walter or Andrei would have to say that that was the case.

The discussion was here: http://forum.dlang.org/post/rtwbtxigfeupvykpbamh@forum.dlang.org

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13388 Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@gdcproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|P1 |P4 --

Forums