On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 21:37:02 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
Jonathan Marler via Digitalmars-d píše v St 28. 01. 2015 v
19:33 +0000:
On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 19:29:25 UTC, Daniel Kozak
wrote:
>> I would think the reason would be it could make the grammar
>> ambiguous. That's why I proposed it only be valid on the
>> right hand side of the function to guarantee it doesn't
>> introduce any ambiguity. Other then that, I don't see any
>> reason why it's a bad thing. It doesn't make the syntax
>> more complicated, it doesn't maker it harder to parse, I
>> just don't see why its bad.
>
> Thats not possible:
>
> @safe {
> void some func() // now valid
> }
>
> safe:
> void some func() // now valid
>
>
>
> safe {
> void some func() // could not be valid
> }
>
> safe:
> void some func() // could not be valid
>
>
> So you need more places where keyword needs to be contextual
> keyword
>
> And this is a path I am not sure we want to go.
None of those cases would valid. Non-Keyword attributes
without a '@' must be on the right hand side of the function
parameters.
void some func(); // some is not a keyword, so it is invalid
Typo I mean some_func
Oh ok. Then I'm not sure what your trying to say with your
examples. The proposal is that you could only omit the '@'
symbol if the word appeared after the function parameters.
safe void foo(); // STILL NOT VALID
void foo() safe; // NOW VALID
If it comes before, then you still need the '@'.
@safe void foo(); // STILL VALID (no change), however,
// this usage would be discouraged
Your examples do bring up a usage I hadn't thought of though. It
would be a bit odd for newcomers to use "safe" without an '@' in
one case and then have to include the '@' another case (the
example you provided). This makes it less appealing. Either
way, I don't think it matters since the proposal isn't acceptable
for a different reason, the leadership doesn't like the same
words to be used as function attributes sometimes and identifiers
other times.
