On Tuesday, November 06, 2012 22:53:36 Artur Skawina wrote: > On 11/06/12 22:02, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 06, 2012 11:18:34 Walter Bright wrote: > >> No hitting below the belt! Let the games begin! > > > > Definitely @(ArgumentList). It fits with what other languages do, and it > > matches what we're already doing for attributes. I also think that's what > > pretty much everyone was figuring would be used for user-defined > > attributes. The only major problem would be if @ArgumentList is allowed > > when there's only a single argument, then code could break when new > > built-in attributes are added. > Easy - do not introduce any new *global* built-in attributes, ever. There's > no reason why they all can't use the same look-up rules.
That's not really acceptable IMHO. Not being able to add new attributes to the language itself in the future is way too restrictive, and I expect that we'll come up with more that we want to add eventually. Designing custom attributes in a way that is guaranteed to conflict with that is a bad idea. We're restricting ourselves and causing problems for ourselves later when we could easily avoid doing so. - Jonathan M Davis
