The Wrong Stuff

[Simen kjaeraas]

Simen kjaeraas <simen.kjaras at gmail.com> wrote:

> Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote:
>
>>> That said, @tributes are of course keywords too.
>>
>> No they're not. Go look at the list of keywords in TDPL. property, for  
>> instance,
>> is not a keyword. Part of the point of attributes was to make it so  
>> that they
>> weren't keywords and therefore didn't make the list of keywords any  
>> longer. An
>> attribute can't both not eat up valid identifiers and be a keyword at  
>> the same
>> time. Attributes are parsed like variable names and are not considered  
>> special
>> by the grammar.
>>
>> Now, there are currently on a fixed set of properties recognized by the  
>> compiler,
>> and user-defined attributes don't yet exist, but they aren't keywords.
>
> A rose by any other name...
>
> You may label them whatever you want. The fact still is - built-in
> @tributes are reserved words of the language, with special meaning to
> the compiler. If that is not a keyword, I would like to hear a
> common definition of keyword that does not include @tributes, and a
> definition of what @tributes are in comparison.

To clarify a bit (I hope), any word prefixed with @ is special to the
compiler and the language. It is an error to use an @-prefixed identifier
anywhere in the code, thus they follow the rules of keywords.

-- 
Simen