Proposal: Definition of @-attributes

[Roman Ivanov]

Roman Ivanov Wrote:

> Lars T. Kyllingstad Wrote:
> 
> > In the "Function calls" thread the question of "which attributes should 
> > be in the @-namespace" has again come up.
> > 
> > 
> > Problem:
> > Currently, there doesn't seem to be any clear definition of which 
> > attributes should be prefixed with @ and which shouldn't.  New 
> > attributes get an @, while already existing attributes don't, and it all 
> > seems a bit arbitrary.  Then again, we probably don't want *all* 
> > attributes to be written with @, as that would just make code look messy:
> > 
> >      @safe @nothrow @private @property int foo() { ... }
> 
> I'm not saying D should do this, but in my opinion placing those things before function name and return type isn't very readable once you get more than two modifiers, regardless of whether you use @ or not. Compare:
> 
> int foo() safe nothrow private property { ... }
> 
> This is especially true if you have user-defined attributes, because you no longer have to think about where is return type name and where is the attribute. The method signature is visually separated by the parenthesis:
> 
> SomeType foo() private somethingable { ... }
> vs
> @somethingable private SomeType foo() { ... }

I guess I didn't say what I wanted to say. IMO, Java syntax for such things is not the best one possible for readability. You have to scan the code very extensively to separate method signature from the surrounding fluff:

@FrameworkBinding(name="xyz")
@Retention(Whatever.RUNTIME)
public final static synchronized MyClass function(AnotherClass) throws SomeException{
//...
}

I would rather have something like this:

MyClass function(AnotherClass) public final static synchronized
throws[SomeException]
frameworkBinding[name="xyz"]
retention[Whatever.RUNTIME] {
//...
}

Why? Because you would know that the method signature is the first thing that starts after newlines. Also, using parenthesis for both method calls and annotations is visually confusing.

Again, I understand that what you're discussing here is not quire the same as annotations, and I don't ask that D adopts the syntax I'm posting, but IMO there is a lesson about readability that can be learned here and that should be kept in mind. 

Ability to mentally and visually separate pieces of code with different functionality makes reading code _much_ simpler. So does the ability to "group" together the pieces of code that have similar functionality.