[ ArgumentList ] vs. @( ArgumentList )

[deadalnix]

Le 07/11/2012 09:32, Nathan M. Swan a écrit :
> On 11/06/2012 10:18 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> For User Defined Attributes.
>>
>> In the north corner we have the current champeeeeon:
>>
>> -------
>> [ ArgumentList ]
>>
>> Pros:
>> precedent with C#
>> looks nice
>>
>> Cons:
>> not so greppable
>> parsing ambiguity with [array literal].func();
>>
>> ------
>> In the south corner, there's the chaaaaallenger:
>>
>> @( ArgumentList )
>>
>> Pros:
>> looks like existing @attribute syntax
>> no parsing problems
>>
>> Cons:
>> not as nice looking
>> ------
>>
>> No hitting below the belt! Let the games begin!
>
> [], because @ should be reserved for future language keywords.
>
> Whenever people post suggested language features that require some
> marking, they introduce a new @attribute, because introducing a plain
> keyword breaks code. If you have @UDAs, this further limits language
> expansion.
>
> Example: let's say you want to introduce a "nogc" mark:
> 1. Not a nogc keyword, that could break "bool nogc;"
> 2. If you have @, @nogc could break an "enum nogc;" attribute.
> 3. Now you're stuck with __nogc or #nogc or something uglier.
>
> There is a familiar-to-other-langauges advantage to @, but there is a
> better-than-other-languages advantage to [].
>
> My thoughts,
> NMS

I think D has already too many feature, and that many of them can be 
implemented as attribute + AST processing.

D should work toward getting this AST stuff and stop adding new keywords 
all the time.