On 6 April 2012 13:06, Timon Gehr
<timon.gehr@gmx.ch> wrote:
On 04/06/2012 11:57 AM, Manu wrote:
I don't think it should affect the type, although this shows a
conceptual problem when referring to existing attributes via the same
terminology. Obviously one might consider 'const', 'pure', etc
attributes themselves, and they clearly do affect the type.
Perhaps that's the key distinction between an '@'
attribute(/'annotation'?), and a no-'@' attribute?
I realise that, I'm just suggesting this is a possible solution to the confusion... if the distinction were to be made clearly.
I guess it's impossible though, can't go claiming 'safe' from the global namespace :)