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

[Iain Buclaw]

On 18 December 2012 16:58, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw at ubuntu.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

Might believe you. :=)

-- 
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/bf011e1a/attachment.html>