| Thread overview | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
July 12, 2021 RFC: DIP draft for "Compiler-defined Attribute Consistency" | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
 | Hi All, After asking around in the #d channel on the Libera.Chat IRC network, there seems to be consensus that it would make sense to propose an updated version of DIP64 that only focuses on Compiler-defined Attribute Consistency. The current DIP draft can be found here. Comments very welcome. Best Regards, Rune Morling | |||
July 12, 2021 Re: RFC: DIP draft for "Compiler-defined Attribute Consistency" | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
 Posted in reply to Rune Morling | On Monday, 12 July 2021 at 22:20:04 UTC, Rune Morling wrote: >Comments very welcome. In Description: >This could be achieved via suitable aliases. I don't get this sentence, it sounds like Keywords that are only attributes (i.e. they are not also storage classes or type constructors) will be need to be deprecated. You can be specific here: " To aid in this transition a tool could be constructed on top of the lexer contained in the D-Scanner project Find and replace also does the job, you just need to watch for a few false positives in comments and string literals where 'pure' is used as an adjective instead of referring to Various documentation (including the Dlang tour) will need to be updated to reflect this change. That speaks for itself. | |||
July 13, 2021 Re: RFC: DIP draft for "Compiler-defined Attribute Consistency" | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Dennis | On Monday, 12 July 2021 at 23:38:56 UTC, Dennis wrote: >On Monday, 12 July 2021 at 22:20:04 UTC, Rune Morling wrote: >Comments very welcome. Thank you for the feedback. I'm wondering if I should have posted the OP in General instead to get more eyeballs on it? Are there any rules for cross-posting? | |||
October 04, 2021 Re: RFC: DIP draft for "Compiler-defined Attribute Consistency" | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
 Posted in reply to Rune Morling | On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 11:05:37 UTC, Rune Morling wrote: >On Monday, 12 July 2021 at 23:38:56 UTC, Dennis wrote: >On Monday, 12 July 2021 at 22:20:04 UTC, Rune Morling wrote: >Comments very welcome. Thank you for the feedback. I'm wondering if I should have posted the OP in General instead to get more eyeballs on it? Are there any rules for cross-posting? I think you should post this on general. I only found it be accident 😬 | |||
Permalink
Reply
