On Sunday, 29 December 2013 at 11:02:33 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
And my answer to that was probably something like: that module
name could already be in use today.
Can't remember :) It won't if such modules will used a common
reserved package name (__dmd.attributes or __compiler.attributes).
Also, then we get a third way of naming keywords:
@property nothrow @reserved.foobar int bar ();
Is it bad? Why would anyone want to qualify it explicitly?
My proposal to resolve such name clash was to use existing symbol
resolution rules and add explicit symbol import in such cases:
import __compiler.attributes : property; // takes precedence over
"silent" import AFAIK
