On Tuesday, 22 August 2017 at 19:56:46 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
I disagree with both the notion that this is poor language design and that an IDE is required to make sense out of code that uses the new feature.
Indeed, I can't imagine a DIP suggesting to make core regular attributes, keyword like getting very far had those attributes been added after we got UDAs.
While IDEs may be able to show you instantly what attributes a function has, so would the compiler (in the form of an errors message if you got it wrong, quality of said message notwithstanding), documentation, any dcd based tooling (or any other tools that can do symbol resolution) and code searches.
If the tooling is insufficient for this use case, then it should be improved as this is a problem that is able to be solved completely by tooling. If you choose not to use the tooling, and it would solve this problem, then that is fine, but I don't think we should limit the design of the language because of that.
