Rationale (http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/rationale.html) says:
"""Why not use operator names like __add__ and __div__ instead of opAdd, opDiv, etc.?

__ keywords should indicate a proprietary language extension, not a basic part of the language. """


But traits is explained under the language spec, http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/traits.html.


Can I expect traits to exist for all compiler implementations, or just dmd?

On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 08:42:40 -0400, simendsjo <simen.endsjo@pandavre.com> wrote:

> Rationale (http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/rationale.html) says:
> """Why not use operator names like __add__ and __div__ instead of opAdd, opDiv, etc.?
>
> __ keywords should indicate a proprietary language extension, not a basic part of the language. """
>
>
> But traits is explained under the language spec, http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/traits.html.
>
>
> Can I expect traits to exist for all compiler implementations, or just dmd?

__traits was an experiment, one that is highly successful, and will likely be a permanent part of the language.

It has been suggested that we choose a keyword to replace __traits, meta was one such suggestion that I like.  AFAIK, Walter hasn't really commented on it.

-Steve