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