[ ArgumentList ] vs. @( ArgumentList )

[deadalnix]

Le 07/11/2012 00:21, Jonathan M Davis a écrit :
> On Tuesday, November 06, 2012 22:53:36 Artur Skawina wrote:
>> On 11/06/12 22:02, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Easy - do not introduce any new *global* built-in attributes, ever. There's
>> no reason why they all can't use the same look-up rules.
>
> That's not really acceptable IMHO. Not being able to add new attributes to the
> language itself in the future is way too restrictive, and I expect that we'll
> come up with more that we want to add eventually. Designing custom attributes
> in a way that is guaranteed to conflict with that is a bad idea. We're
> restricting ourselves and causing problems for ourselves later when we could
> easily avoid doing so.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Language attribute can be added in object.d and regular lookup rule apply.