UDAs name convention

[Jonathan Marler via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 at 23:02:33 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
> When I read discusion about @nothrow @pure... I start thinking 
> what will happen if  go that way.
>
> If we make an agreement on @pure and so on we are ok now 
> because pure is a keyword already. But if there will be that 
> consensus all other attributes should have @ in name. For eg. 
> we add @virtual or @forceinline. This could cause some code 
> breakage if someone already use UDA with this name.
>
> One way how to avoid it would be allow @pure @virtual and 
> others only on right side so it would not clash with UDAs so 
> this code will work:
>
> struct virtual {}
>
> class C
> {
>     @virtual void someFun() @virtual {}
> }
>
> But it does not look OK for me.
>
> So I think it would be nice to have some name convention for 
> UDAs, so one can be sure it will never be in conflict with 
> compiler attributes.
>
> So what do you think?

I agree that putting language defined attributes on the right 
hand side would be a good thing.  It makes things consistent.  
Also, if we did that then we could enhance the grammar to support 
removing the '@' symbol on these attributes without making them 
keywords and without making the grammar ambiguous.  Plus, it's 
easier to parse that way.  Better for syntax highlighting.