[ ArgumentList ] vs. @( ArgumentList )

[Iain Buclaw]

On 6 November 2012 21:53, Walter Bright <newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
> 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".

*cough* _Static_Assert *cough*

-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';