accept @pure @nothrow @return attributes

Zach the Mystic via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Mon Jan 26 18:30:11 PST 2015


On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 at 01:31:07 UTC, Jonathan Marler 
wrote:
> Yes you're right it adds more inconsistency (sorry what I said 
> was wrong).  However, no matter what solution you choose you 
> have to choose one of two evils.  Either add inconsistency or 
> break code.  There's no way around it.  If you ADD another way 
> to write the attributes that looks better, you've created more 
> "inconsistency".  If you REPLACE the existing way to write 
> attributes, you've now broken code.

The third way is to do nothing, and live with the existing 
inconsistency. It's not a bad choice, considering.

> So again, I was suggesting one way of implementing my proposal 
> which was to add an inconsistency, but you could implement it 
> another way but you would have to break code.  Do you have a 
> solution that doesn't do either?  I think if you try to find 
> one, you'll see that I'm right in saying you're going to have 
> to choose one or the other.

I already suggested the best solution I could come up with: break 
code in the most benign possible manner, using a 
compiler-integrated 'dfix' experience. BTW, I'm glad you agree 
with me about the ugliness of the @ sign. Even with dfix, the 
decision could still be made to have everything use @'s, which 
would be a solution to the consistency problem, but I would only 
welcome it grudgingly. Good looking code is important to me, and 
@ is *not* where that's @, so to say. :-)


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list