Should compilers take advantage (abuse) of the new UDA syntax that has been accepted?

[bearophile]

Iain Buclaw:

> Where GDC has the following to allow developers to mark 
> functions with the backend attribute 'noreturn'.
>
> pragma(attribute, noreturn)
> void die()
> {
>    abort();
> }
>
>
> Potentially this can now be re-written as.
>
> void die() @noreturn
> {
>    abort();
> }
>
>
> Would you guys stand for such a change to be allowed?

If it's an useful feature, then I suggest to integrate @noreturn 
in d/dmd too.

If it's useful but Walter doesn't want it or it can't be 
implemented in dmd, then I suggest to keep using the less common 
pragma(attribute, noreturn) syntax in gdc, to not clash with 
missing but potential D features.

Compiler-specific features should never clash with potential 
future D features.

-------------

Regarding UDAs currently this program gives no warnings:


struct safe {}
@safe void foo() {}
void main() {}


But now foo is not tagged, it's a @safe function. To tag it you 
have to use:

struct safe {}
@(safe) void foo() {}
void main() {}


Is this name clashing acceptable?

(This is also why adding @noreturn to gdc is a bad idea, increase 
even more that confusion.)

Bye,
bearophile