Should compilers take advantage (abuse) of the new UDA syntax that has been accepted?

[Iain Buclaw]

On 18 December 2012 16:43, Peter Alexander <peter.alexander.au at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Tuesday, 18 December 2012 at 15:19:58 UTC, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>
>> Should we take this as an opportunity for other compiler maintainers to
>> implement their own compiler-specific predefined attributes?
>>
>
> Please, no!
>
> Suppose GDC implements @noreturn (or whatever other attribute)
>
> Later, LDC implements @noreturn separately with slightly different
> semantics.
>
> We now end up in a situation where @noreturn cannot be used portably, and
> neither compiler developer has incentive to change (whoever changes breaks
> their users code).
>
>
Provide a situation where @noreturn attribute would mean anything other
than telling the compiler to assume that the function cannot return, and I
might please you on *that* particular attribute.

Others, however yes might have vague meanings.... @target, @optimize,
@format...



-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20121218/b611f726/attachment.html>