[Issue 5748] @naked annotation

[d-bugmail at puremagic.com]

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5748



--- Comment #6 from Max Samukha <samukha at voliacable.com> 2011-03-18 01:55:04 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > > Naked is an internal characteristic of a function, not an external one. It
> > > simply does not belong in the declaration, despite the existence of poorly
> > > designed extensions in other languages.
> > > 
> > But it is still a function characteristic
> 
> Internal only. It is not externally visible and simply does not logically
> belong in the description of the external interface.
> 
> > and it definitely doesn't belong in
> > the assembly block, so I think "poorly designed" applies to D as well.
> 
> Naked only makes sense if you have inline assembly, so physically associating
> it with that makes sense. There is no obvious syntax for it, but putting it in
> the function's external interface is just wrong.

Only if you think about function attributes as attributes of the function's
interface.

> 
> > > Think of it this way - is it a good design to have to change your header files
> > > if you change your implementation?
> > You do not need to change header files with MSVC because the attribute is
> > permitted only in the function definition.
> 
> Sorry, but major yuk to that :-)

Maybe, you are right. Minor issue, anyway. Doesn't deserve a major yuk.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------