On Thursday, 8 November 2012 at 11:01:13 UTC, Jonas Drewsen wrote:
On Thursday, 8 November 2012 at 00:03:34 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 11/7/12 10:24 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 11/7/2012 11:40 AM, Jonas Drewsen wrote:
I we were to allow for @foobar style UDA then "safe" would
have to be
a reserved
keyword somehow. Otherwise I do not know what this would
mean:
struct safe { }
@safe void foobar() { }
Yes, I agree this is a significant problem.
I think it's solvable. The basic approach would be to plop
types "safe", "nothrow" etc. in object.di and then let them
just behave like all other arguments.
The original argument that the @ in front of @safe is a way to
prevent introducing new keywords is all gone then since "safe"
becomes a normal symbol which is reserved in the library and in
the compiler to let it do its magic.
Then @safe could just as well be a normal builtin storage class
called "safe".
* Plopping types "safe","nothrow" etc. into object.di would be
a breaking change.
* Making @safe, @nothrow into keywords called "safe", "nothrow"
would be breaking change.
The latter would be the cleanest cut and not have the
semantic/parse stage problems that Walter mentioned.
Another option would to enforce parenthesis @(safe) for UDA
which would make it less nice for the eyes to look at.
/Jonas
Not safe but @safe should become a keyword.
