grauzone Wrote: > Daniel Keep wrote: > >> Yes, but then they're just keywords, with an @ in front. You'd just be > >> kidding yourself if you think you've reduced the keyword count. > > > > I suspect the reasoning goes like this: > > > > * I want attributes. Walter doesn't see the use. > > * Walter complains about adding keywords. > > * I can make keywords look like attributes, and then I get attributes! > > > > :P > > > The idea is just stolen from C#/Java. I guess the idea is that 1. > keywords/annotations are in a different namespace and 2. even compile > time "keyword" annotations can be handled as normal identifiers. The > second point means introducing a new keyword is like declaring a new > identifier in object.d. > > But it would also allow users shadowing annotation "keywords" by > defining their own annotations, which might be a problem or not.
IIRC, in C# you can use keywords as identifiers. int @if = 3; // this is a variable called "if" the @ in C# is a way to tell the parser - "don't treat this as a keyword".
