[ ArgumentList ] vs. @( ArgumentList )

[deadalnix]

Le 08/11/2012 12:01, Jonas Drewsen a écrit :
> On Thursday, 8 November 2012 at 00:03:34 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 11/7/12 10:24 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 11/7/2012 11:40 AM, Jonas Drewsen wrote:
>>>> I we were to allow for @foobar style UDA then "safe" would have to be
>>>> a reserved
>>>> keyword somehow. Otherwise I do not know what this would mean:
>>>>
>>>> struct safe { }
>>>> @safe void foobar() { }
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree this is a significant problem.
>>>
>>
>> I think it's solvable. The basic approach would be to plop types
>> "safe", "nothrow" etc. in object.di and then let them just behave like
>> all other arguments.
>
> The original argument that the @ in front of @safe is a way to prevent
> introducing new keywords is all gone then since "safe" becomes a normal
> symbol which is reserved in the library and in the compiler to let it do
> its magic.
>
> Then @safe could just as well be a normal builtin storage class called
> "safe".
>
> * Plopping types "safe","nothrow" etc. into object.di would be a
> breaking change.
> * Making @safe, @nothrow into keywords called "safe", "nothrow" would be
> breaking change.
>
> The latter would be the cleanest cut and not have the semantic/parse
> stage problems that Walter mentioned.
>
> Another option would to enforce parenthesis @(safe) for UDA which would
> make it less nice for the eyes to look at.
>
> /Jonas
>

nothrow is already a keyword (which is really inconsistent). I'm not 
sure what it does buy us, and both safe and nothrow are good candidates 
for lib implementation rather than compiler support.