Standard way to supply hints to branches

[Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole]

On 11/09/2024 11:53 PM, Manu wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sept 2024 at 09:12, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d 
> <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com <mailto:digitalmars-d at puremagic.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On 9/9/2024 7:18 PM, Tejas wrote:
>      > Hi, what are your views on the article linked below that
>     discourages using
>      > `[[likely]]` and `[[unlikely]]`?
>      >
>      >
>     https://blog.aaronballman.com/2020/08/dont-use-the-likely-or-unlikely-attributes/ <https://blog.aaronballman.com/2020/08/dont-use-the-likely-or-unlikely-attributes/>
> 
>     Wow. The article eviscerates that design.
> 
> 
> Just to be clear; nobody I'm aware of has proposed that design, so I 
> hope that's not your take-away.
> 
> My proposal is to allow a hint attached strictly to control statements. 
> (ideally as a suffix)
> It is easy to read, also easy to ignore (this is important), and 
> extremely low-impact when marking up existing code: no new lines, no 
> rearranging of code, purely additive; strictly appends to the end of 
> existing control statements... these are very nice properties for 
> casually marking up some code where it proves to be profitable, without 
> interfering with readability, or even interfering with historic diff's 
> in any meaningful way that might make it annoying to review.

Ideas forum proposal I wrote a little bit ago, based upon this article 
for what it should not do.

https://forum.dlang.org/post/oezbkynwdhfqatsvufdm@forum.dlang.org