[ ArgumentList ] vs. @( ArgumentList )

[deadalnix]

Le 06/11/2012 22:53, Walter Bright a écrit :
> On 11/6/2012 1:41 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>> Le 06/11/2012 22:02, Jonathan M Davis a écrit :
>>> On Tuesday, November 06, 2012 11:18:34 Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> No hitting below the belt! Let the games begin!
>>>
>>> Definitely @(ArgumentList). It fits with what other languages do, and
>>> it matches
>>> what we're already doing for attributes. I also think that's what
>>> pretty much
>>> everyone was figuring would be used for user-defined attributes. The
>>> only major
>>> problem would be if @ArgumentList is allowed when there's only a single
>>> argument, then code could break when new built-in attributes are added.
>>>
>>
>> Can you explain that code breakage ?
>
> C++11 has had problems adding new keywords, as about every identifier
> somewhere has been used by someone's C++ source code, and they don't
> want to break existing code. So C++11 winds up with awful things like
> "decltype".

OK I understand. This is fixable easily by adding thoses magic attribute 
in object and using regular lookup rules.