DIP6: Attributes

[grauzone]

Daniel Keep wrote:
>> Yes, but then they're just keywords, with an @ in front. You'd just be
>> kidding yourself if you think you've reduced the keyword count.
> 
> I suspect the reasoning goes like this:
> 
> * I want attributes.  Walter doesn't see the use.
> * Walter complains about adding keywords.
> * I can make keywords look like attributes, and then I get attributes!
> 
> :P


The idea is just stolen from C#/Java. I guess the idea is that 1. 
keywords/annotations are in a different namespace and 2. even compile 
time "keyword" annotations can be handled as normal identifiers. The 
second point means introducing a new keyword is like declaring a new 
identifier in object.d.

But it would also allow users shadowing annotation "keywords" by 
defining their own annotations, which might be a problem or not.