Jump to page: 1 24  
Page
Thread overview
RFC: DIP draft for "Compiler-defined Attribute Consistency"
Jul 14
user1234
Jul 14
Dennis
Jul 16
bauss
Jul 14
Ogi
Jul 14
Dennis
Jul 14
Dennis
Jul 14
user1234
Jul 14
Dennis
Jul 14
Ogi
Jul 16
vit
Jul 17
Dennis
3 days ago
Nick Treleaven
July 14

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

(Note that this is a cross-post from Development Internals in order to get in front of more eyeballs)

July 15
Two improvements to the grammar:

1. Don't repeat the spec, use ... to signify a copy
2. Use diff syntax for syntax highlighting

Note: there is already a tool for upgrading D code, DFix https://github.com/dlang-community/dfix
July 14

On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 15:01:05 UTC, Rune Morling wrote:

>

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

(Note that this is a cross-post from Development Internals in order to get in front of more eyeballs)

I'm worried not to see @const and @inout.

July 14

On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 15:54:06 UTC, user1234 wrote:

> >

Comments very welcome.

I don't like that @attr is colliding with UDA.
It would be nice to have # for attr and @ for uda (or viceversa).

July 14

On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 15:54:06 UTC, user1234 wrote:

>

I'm worried not to see @const and @inout.

eh those are type constructors not attributes.

July 14

On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 15:54:06 UTC, user1234 wrote:

>

I'm worried not to see @const and @inout.

Those are type constructors, not attributes.

July 14

On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 16:02:01 UTC, Andrea Fontana wrote:

>

It would be nice to have # for attr and @ for uda (or viceversa).

I think that ship sailed 10 years ago.

July 14

On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 16:02:01 UTC, Andrea Fontana wrote:

>

It would be nice to have # for attr and @ for uda (or viceversa).

That conflicts with #line directives.

July 14

On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 15:54:06 UTC, user1234 wrote:

>

I'm worried not to see @const and @inout.

Also @immutable and @shared.

July 14

On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 16:18:11 UTC, Adam D Ruppe wrote:

>

On Wednesday, 14 July 2021 at 15:54:06 UTC, user1234 wrote:

>

I'm worried not to see @const and @inout.

eh those are type constructors not attributes.

Except when they are attributes — when applied to member functions.

It makes no sense that const int variable is a constant integer while const int function() is a constant member function of some struct or class that returns non-constant integer. We should introduce @const (and others) as a proper function attribute and deprecate the ambiguous const int function() syntax.

« First   ‹ Prev
1 2 3 4