[ ArgumentList ] vs. @( ArgumentList )

[Andrej Mitrovic]

On 11/7/12, Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/7/12, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote:
>> It would still break code, because then there would be a conflict which
>> would have to be resolved.
>
> I really doubt we're going to create any new language properties
> (you're the only one I can see suggesting this). And if we are, we
> should use special identifiers that begin with underscores. In any
> case, we can always use an alias to resolve conflicts.
>

Actually, let me give you a better argument.

Let's say you implement your own @(NoGC) attribute that you use in
your own library. You use it like so:

@(NoGC) class Foo { }

And somewhere down the road 5 months from now druntime introduces it's
own @NoGC attribute. Personally I would rather have a compile-time
error due to clashing symbol names right then and there. Otherwise I
could easily end up in a situation where I **forget** to parenthesize
my custom NoGC attribute and end up using the druntime one:

@(NoGC) class Foo { }
@NoGC class Bar { }  // oops, I meant @(NoGC)

I really don't think we should have parenthesis dictate name lookup,
it's way too easy to screw things up like that. Let the symbols clash
so I can fix the problem with the already existing alias tools in D:

alias mymod.NoGC MyNoGC;

@(MyNoGC) class Foo { }
@MyNoGC class Bar { }

or simply:
@(mymod.NoGC) class Foo { }
@mymod.NoGC class Bar { }

Then I can be at ease knowing I'm not accidentally using one attribute
or the other because of an issue with missing parens.