[Issue 3934] Some untidy attributes

[d-bugmail at puremagic.com]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3934

Mathias LANG <pro.mathias.lang at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |pro.mathias.lang at gmail.com
         Resolution|---                         |INVALID

--- Comment #29 from Mathias LANG <pro.mathias.lang at gmail.com> ---
There are way too many examples (some of which have been addressed, many still
valid) for this to be actionable. A proper proposal would most likely take a
lot of time and go through the DIP process, as it is a fundamental change to
the grammar (regardless of its validity).

Trivial items such as protection attributes on class inheritance and redundant
attributes have been addressed.

Some items are also documented here:
https://github.com/Hackerpilot/Idiotmatic-D/blob/master/idiotmatic.d

> I like the strictness of the Java compiler, it makes sure your attributes are all correct and meaningful, this helps avoid possible bugs.

To address this specific point: DMD being lax, while unsettling to some, is
also great for generic code. There are quite a lot of cases where DMD being
stricter would result in worst code because it would require some special
casing in generic code.

Closing as INVALID.

--