DIP 1007 Preliminary Review Round 1

[Olivier FAURE via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 25 April 2017 at 18:32:09 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> I missed this part. Now that I read that, I think we aren't 
> going to gain much by having this language feature internal to 
> the compiler.

The way I understood it, the feature will only stay internal to 
the compiler until it's deemed "safe" for general use.

> If we want to limit usage, what I'd *rather* see is that the 
> @future (or TBD attribute) only has special meaning inside 
> object.d. Having to adjust a hard-coded compiler list seems 
> like it will result in zero PR changes (save the one that 
> prompted this DIP) that might give us any insight into whether 
> this is a useful feature.

The proposal does include something like that.

> Alternatively, if it proves to be simpler to implement, the 
> feature can be added as an attribute with reserved 
> double-underscore prefix (i.e. @__future) with compiler checks 
> ensuring that it is not used outside of core.*/std.*/object 
> modules. If that course of action is chosen, such an attribute 
> should be defined in the core.attribute module of DRuntime.