Proposal: user defined attributes

[deadalnix]

Le 16/03/2012 18:36, Adam D. Ruppe a écrit :
> 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.

This isn't a problem because they'd be scoped to the module anyway. D 
have no top level names, except for the one provided by the compiler, 
and that is great !