Standard way to supply hints to branches

[Manu]

On Wed, 11 Sept 2024 at 20:01, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:

> On 9/11/2024 4:53 AM, Manu wrote:
> > Just to be clear; nobody I'm aware of has proposed that design, so I
> hope that's
> > not your take-away.
>
> Indeed I thought you were proposing that, glad you're not!
>
> > 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.
>
> How is that materially different from [[likely]] annotations?
>

The article given above shows why arbitrary hints given as stand-alone
statements in a flow causes nonsense when conflicting annotations appear
within a flow.
Attaching exactly one annotation specifically to a control statement that
describes a branch is not at risk of nonsense cases.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20240911/dd2780b4/attachment.htm>