On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 17:34:21 +0000 deadalnix via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, 17 January 2015 at 17:08:12 UTC, ketmar via > Digitalmars-d wrote: > > sure i have. i made alot of patches to the parser, so i know > > how it > > is written. to make this work parser need to be changed not > > less than > > to accept '@' before `pure`, `nothrow` and so on, and this > > change was > > rejected due to added complexity for supporting it by devteam. > > > I'm sorry but this is not a good reason. It would be failry easy > to add this in SDC's parser, so now what ? it tells nothing about > the feature and everything about DMD's parser. this was one of the good reasons to reject `@pure` syntax, so i can't see why it's not a good reason to reject OP's syntax. > > as for "will not be used" -- you can use google to count > > requests for > > this feature. the numbers will show you how much people miss it. > > > > i have no habit of writing tales from the faery world, you know. > > Absence of information is not information. i don't think that you are right here. but i'm not in the right mood to argue.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
