Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote:
That could be the case - I'd have to look at the grammar or parser to be
sure -
but that would be a poor way to do it if you ever intended to have
user-defined
attributes. Normally, @ would be in the grammar as a separate symbol
indicating
that the symbol immediately followed was an identifier which was an
attribute.
It's quite possible, however, that @property is currently treated as a
single
symbol which is a keyword. I doubt that it will stay that way in the
long term
though, if it is the case.
It appears I have not made my stance on this clear - in my mind, anything
that is illegal to use as an identifier, but that is allowed to use in the
language, is a keyword (that is roughly my definition, at least). I don't
care whether the compiler uses this method or that to determine whether it
is a keyword. Perhaps it would be better to use the term 'reserved word'
to encompass both keywords and @tributes (the latter with the @-prefix
included).
--
Simen
