DIP6: Attributes

[Leandro Lucarella]

Steven Schveighoffer, el  3 de agosto a las 11:53 me escribiste:
> >But the DIP I wrote isn't about general-purpose annotations. It's just the 
> >first step. Are "pure" and "nothrow" part of the mangling? Or which are? I 
> >thought not. Can you overload a pure and a not-pure function with the same 
> >parameter count and types?
> 
> Yes, they have to be.  There are reasons besides overloading for including other 
> attributes in the naming.
> 
> For example, if a function is pure, then becomes unpure, you don't existing code 
> that is expecting a pure function to link against it.
> 
> In other words, the linker is dumb.  It only knows how to match symbols, so you 
> have to embed into the symbols the important pieces of the interface that you 
> want the linker to consider important.
> 
> To answer Don's point, there is nothing saying that the compiler can't read 
> attributes and change its behavior.  Of course, those would have to be builtin 
> attributes.
> 
> My opinion on removing existing keywords is -- don't.  There's little to no 
> gain.  Let that ship sail, and concentrate on future keyword proposals.

I think old keywords can be maintained for backward compatibility but
deprecated (allowing using both "naked" keywords or "annotations"),
favoring the usage of annoatations where sensible. In a far far future,
the old keywords can be removed if annotations prove to be a success.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Novocaine for the soul
you better give me something
to fill the hole
before I sputter out