The Wrong Stuff

[Simen kjaeraas]

Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote:

>> That said, @tributes are of course keywords too.
>
> No they're not. Go look at the list of keywords in TDPL. property, for  
> instance,
> is not a keyword. Part of the point of attributes was to make it so that  
> they
> weren't keywords and therefore didn't make the list of keywords any  
> longer. An
> attribute can't both not eat up valid identifiers and be a keyword at  
> the same
> time. Attributes are parsed like variable names and are not considered  
> special
> by the grammar.
>
> Now, there are currently on a fixed set of properties recognized by the  
> compiler,
> and user-defined attributes don't yet exist, but they aren't keywords.

A rose by any other name...

You may label them whatever you want. The fact still is - built-in
@tributes are reserved words of the language, with special meaning to
the compiler. If that is not a keyword, I would like to hear a
common definition of keyword that does not include @tributes, and a
definition of what @tributes are in comparison.

-- 
Simen