Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
I think it's funny that for a week, Andrei has been arguing against
throwing around new syntax to solve this problem, and that's exactly
what you guys have come up with. Really, how much more complicated
would this make the parser, compared to adding a new attribute?
We couldn't find a good solution without adding new syntax, so this is
now on the table. Adding syntax or keywords is the next thing to look
at. I'd still be unsatisfied if:
(a) there would be significant syntactic noise to defining a read-only
property
(b) we had to add a keyword
Andrei
The nice thing about a keyword (or an @attribute) is that it's
greppable. Syntax, not so much.
--b
