On 2013-12-28 21:12, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad" <ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang@gmail.com>" wrote:

> Yes, well what I meant was that they used @ to avoid keyword clashes
> with the existing grammar. I personally feel like I am suffering when
> using Objective-C, it's like talking to a compiler with a split
> personality disorder.

Yeah, but it has a though behind it and it's consistent at least.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Sunday, 29 December 2013 at 11:02:33 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> And my answer to that was probably something like: that module name could already be in use today.

Can't remember :) It won't if such modules will used a common reserved package name (__dmd.attributes or __compiler.attributes).

> Also, then we get a third way of naming keywords:
>
> @property nothrow @reserved.foobar int bar ();

Is it bad? Why would anyone want to qualify it explicitly?

My proposal to resolve such name clash was to use existing symbol resolution rules and add explicit symbol import in such cases:

import __compiler.attributes : property; // takes precedence over "silent" import AFAIK