RFC: DIP draft for "Compiler-defined Attribute Consistency"

[Guillaume Piolat]

On Friday, 16 July 2021 at 06:47:57 UTC, bauss wrote:
>> I don't like that @attr is colliding with UDA.
>> It would be nice to have # for attr and @ for uda (or 
>> viceversa).
>
> I would rather have seen built-in attributes having no prefix 
> ex. just safe, nogc etc.
>
> Basically the opposite of making the rest of the attributes 
> having @ too.

+10.447464

More syntax was fine when the attributes were new, but it seems 
to me what is needed would be more "normalcy": safe, trusted, nogc
If you're calling your variable safe or nogc, then well they are 
now keywords: choose proper names.