DIP 1003: remove `body` as a keyword

[Rory McGuire via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Basile B. via Digitalmars-d-announce <
digitalmars-d-announce at puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 10 December 2016 at 13:49:09 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
>
>> On Monday, 28 November 2016 at 02:17:20 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/24/2016 05:29 PM, WM.H wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, 19 November 2016 at 21:16:15 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> DIP 1003 is merged to the queue and open for public informal feedback.
>>>>>
>>>>> PR: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/48
>>>>> Initial merged document:
>>>>> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1003.md
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want the change to be approved and have ideas how to improve it
>>>>> to better match on https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/
>>>>> blob/master/GUIDELINES.md and existing published reviews - please
>>>>> submit new PR with editorial and ping original author.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This DIP fixes the problem for "body" but not for the other keywords.
>>>> After all the problem may exist for other keywords. Was a new pragma
>>>> considered ? For example an identifier alias.
>>>>
>>>> pragma(idAlias, "body", "body_" )
>>>>
>>>
>>> AFAIU, the point of this DIP is that "body" is standing out from other
>>> keywords being used only in one very specific context and being a very
>>> common english word at the same time. Your proposal has a completely
>>> different (and much more drastic) approach.
>>>
>>
>> Yes. But while it's clear that "body" is a keyword that's less related to
>> programming languages than the others (i.e more usable as identifier), it's
>> not actually that mad to imagine a generic approach. For example Object
>> Pascal has such a feature:
>>
>> http://wiki.freepascal.org/FPC_New_Features_2.6.0#Support_
>> for_.26-escaping_of_keywords
>>
>> which is not well known, as I've myself discovered this just 3 minutes
>> ago.
>> In D there would be the "#" token that's not really used, which could
>> serve to escape keywords, while still considering them as identifier when
>> it's needed, e.g
>>
>> struct Body{}
>> Body #body;
>> writeln("'", #body.stringof, "'");
>>
>> would output: 'body'
>>
>
> By the way a pragma was a bad idea. Pragmas are optionally supported by a
> compiler. An escape symbol is by far better. Whatever is the compiler we
> always want the same result.
>
> Any chance to get "Cauterite" thoughts on the option that is to have a
> token used to escape a keyword, so that the kw can be used as identifier ?
>
> The initial DIP is too specialized, however it shows a real problem:
>
> What if one day someone wants
>
>     enum FlagsModifiedByAsmCmp {of, if, zf, cf} ?
>     function Function;
>
> With an escape it would always work
>
>     enum FlagsModifiedByAsmCmp {of, #if, zf, cf}
>     #function Function;
>
> The problem of the suffix "_", as proposed in D style guide, is that it's
> also a valid identifier character, while "#" is not. And the best is that #
> role is already for special token sequences !
> - # = token for special token sequence
> - body = token
> => #body is a special token sequence.
>
> The only thing to change is that currently a special token sequence takes
> a full line...but seriously that's a minor change (since there's no special
> token sequence in D... #line is obsolete and not used anymore).
>

Why is #line obsolete? I use it a lot in string mixins to make the correct
line numbers show.

Thanks!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d-announce/attachments/20161211/9b1771d6/attachment.html>