On Thursday, 29 January 2015 at 19:02:22 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
> On Thursday, 29 January 2015 at 18:38:33 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>> Does it really matter ? Please put your first post in there and be done with it. These proposal are not gonna happen anyway (the ROI is simply not there).
>
> Post is up.  I agree with you that the ROI is not there, however, if someone doesn't understand why then it's good to help them understand.  It produces better developers and helps bring the D community together to have a common understanding. In an ideal world with infinite time we could answer everyone's questions with great detail and walk them through all their concerns and ideas.  However, since time is a finite resource, I think having a wiki we can point people to is a great compromise.  I saw this suggestion in the thread by multiple people and I think it would help to address it in the wiki.
>
> This attitude of thinking that addressing people's concerns doesn't matter is a bit harsh and hurts the language.  I've seen that many upper developers share this attitude and it pushes people away from wanting to contribute.

I like *your* attitude ;)

I am reading http://dlang.org/attribute.html and realizing how subtle this can be...indeed, the distinction of qualifier vs attributes is fuzzy in my head even, qualifiers are defined to be attributes in the spec...Attribute is a node of the grammar in fact so the def is really accurate but I think with more thinking one could think of something more consistent than it has @ because this is a keyword because the next question will be then why isn't this a keyword because that is a keyword...etc.

Write the FAQ a wiki can always be improved.

On Thursday, 29 January 2015 at 19:57:49 UTC, matovitch wrote:
> On Thursday, 29 January 2015 at 19:02:22 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
>> On Thursday, 29 January 2015 at 18:38:33 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>>> Does it really matter ? Please put your first post in there and be done with it. These proposal are not gonna happen anyway (the ROI is simply not there).
>>
>> Post is up.  I agree with you that the ROI is not there, however, if someone doesn't understand why then it's good to help them understand.  It produces better developers and helps bring the D community together to have a common understanding. In an ideal world with infinite time we could answer everyone's questions with great detail and walk them through all their concerns and ideas.  However, since time is a finite resource, I think having a wiki we can point people to is a great compromise.  I saw this suggestion in the thread by multiple people and I think it would help to address it in the wiki.
>>
>> This attitude of thinking that addressing people's concerns doesn't matter is a bit harsh and hurts the language.  I've seen that many upper developers share this attitude and it pushes people away from wanting to contribute.
>
> I like *your* attitude ;)
>
> I am reading http://dlang.org/attribute.html and realizing how subtle this can be...indeed, the distinction of qualifier vs attributes is fuzzy in my head even, qualifiers are defined to be attributes in the spec...Attribute is a node of the grammar in fact so the def is really accurate but I think with more thinking one could think of something more consistent than it has @ because this is a keyword because the next question will be then why isn't this a keyword because that is a keyword...etc.
>
> Write the FAQ a wiki can always be improved.

You wrote it ! This looks great ! :)

On Thursday, 29 January 2015 at 19:02:22 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
> This attitude of thinking that addressing people's concerns doesn't matter is a bit harsh and hurts the language.  I've seen that many upper developers share this attitude and it pushes people away from wanting to contribute.

It is not what I meant. i think your post address theses concerns very well without needing to get into various proposal in details.

Thank for posting it up.

On 29/01/2015 17:51, Jonathan Marler wrote:
> Nick I'm putting together the FAQ right now.  I don't quite understand
> this proposal.  Could you outline it for me?  I'd like to know exactly
> what words would require an '@' symbol. What is the criteria for when to
> use an '@' and when not to use one? This current rule is (use '@' if it
> is not a keyword)...so what would the new rule be? Thanks.

My idea was just: if it can apply to variables, use keyword or __keyword. If it doesn't apply to variables, use @attribute. But this shouldn't be documented anywhere.