On 2012-11-14 01:53, Walter Bright wrote:
Guy says something interesting in there that's applicable to one of our current discussions.Particularly, should we allow: @identifier as a user-defined attribute, in potential conflict with future reserved attribute words, or not? Guy makes the argument that users need to be able to extend the vocabulary of a language and have those new words look like built-in ones. We have that today, of course, with the ability of defining new types. There is no special syntax that says "this is a user-defined type, not a keyword." I think this is a compelling argument, and tips the scales in its favor. Probably we've been excessively worried about the problems of adding a new builtin attribute type.
Thank you for finally realizing. It's the same reason why we have operator overloading, we want user defined types to look like built in types.
-- /Jacob Carlborg
