On 6 April 2012 13:06, Timon Gehr <timon.g...@gmx.ch> wrote: > On 04/06/2012 11:57 AM, Manu wrote: > >> I don't think it should affect the type, although this shows a >> conceptual problem when referring to existing attributes via the same >> terminology. Obviously one might consider 'const', 'pure', etc >> attributes themselves, and they clearly do affect the type. >> Perhaps that's the key distinction between an '@' >> attribute(/'annotation'?), and a no-'@' attribute? >> > > @safe affects the type. >
I realise that, I'm just suggesting this is a possible solution to the confusion... if the distinction were to be made clearly. I guess it's impossible though, can't go claiming 'safe' from the global namespace :)
