Proposal: user defined attributes

[Adam D. Ruppe]

On Friday, 16 March 2012 at 16:57:26 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> I thought @<symbol> was supposed to be a user-defined 
> annotation.  Otherwise, why did we introduce @syntax?

idk, to "reduce" the number of keywords or somethiny.

This is why I call it a mistake or missed opportunity
right now though: @property, @safe, @disable, @system,
and @trusted have already made a claim on the @syntax.

Now, we have to work around that, which is why I'm
thinking @note(expression) rather than @<something>.

> I'd rather see something like this:

I could live with that too, but I think it'd be harder
to make happen due to potential clashes with the current
thing @ is used for.