Simen kjaeraas <simen.kja...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote:
That said, @tributes are of course keywords too.
No they're not. Go look at the list of keywords in TDPL. property, for
instance,
is not a keyword. Part of the point of attributes was to make it so
that they
weren't keywords and therefore didn't make the list of keywords any
longer. An
attribute can't both not eat up valid identifiers and be a keyword at
the same
time. Attributes are parsed like variable names and are not considered
special
by the grammar.
Now, there are currently on a fixed set of properties recognized by the
compiler,
and user-defined attributes don't yet exist, but they aren't keywords.
A rose by any other name...
You may label them whatever you want. The fact still is - built-in
@tributes are reserved words of the language, with special meaning to
the compiler. If that is not a keyword, I would like to hear a
common definition of keyword that does not include @tributes, and a
definition of what @tributes are in comparison.
To clarify a bit (I hope), any word prefixed with @ is special to the
compiler and the language. It is an error to use an @-prefixed identifier
anywhere in the code, thus they follow the rules of keywords.
--
Simen
