The great inapplicable attribute debate

[Nick Sabalausky]

"BCS" <none at anon.com> wrote in message 
news:a6268ff4a7a8cb89c641dc84ac at news.digitalmars.com...
> Hello Stewart,
>
>> Perhaps what complicates matters further is that D has three ways of
>> specifying attributes:
>>
>> (i) as part of the declaration itself
>
> I more or less only use this.
>
>> (ii) in a block delimited by { }
>
> If I remembered that this one even exists, I might use it.
>
>> (iii) with a colon to apply to everything that follows until the end
>> of
>> the scope
>
> I'd be just tickled if this one were just dropped.
>
> Just my $0.02 because that might make things less complex.
>

I'm kind of on the fence about whether (ii) or (iii) should be allowed. I 
haven't used (iii) since I was using C/C++ regularly (ie, almost 10 years 
ago). But I think the only real reason I switched from (iii) to (i) was 
because of the time I spent with Java and C#. I would never want to get rid 
of (i), but I keep debating with myself about occasional usage of (ii) or 
(iii).