On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 06:53:02PM -0700, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: [...] > I confess that I do tend to think about things from the standpoint of > a library designer though, in part because I work on stuff like > Phobos, but also because I tend to break up my programs into libraries > as much as reasonably possible. In general, the more that's in a > reusable, easily testable library the better. And with that approach, > a lot less of the code for your programs is actually in the program > itself, and the attributes tend to matter that much more. [...]
My recent programming style has also become very library-like, often with standalone library-style pieces of code budding off a messier, experimental code in main() (and ultimately, if the project is long-lasting, main() itself becomes stripped down to the bare essentials, just a bunch of library components put together). But I've not felt a strong urge to deal with attributes in any detailed way; mostly I just templatize everything and let the compiler do attribute inference on my behalf. For the few cases where explicit attributes matter, I still only use the bare minimum I can get away with, and mostly just enforce template attributes using the unittest idiom rather than bother with writing explicit attributes everywhere in the actual code. T -- He who sacrifices functionality for ease of use, loses both and deserves neither. -- Slashdotter
