On 2012-04-06 15:48, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Friday, 6 April 2012 at 12:52:27 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Just as we have today with keywords and symbols, I don't see the problem.
Things like safe aren't keywords though. They are just
magic identifiers.
Think of the implementation:
switch(tok.ident) {
case Id::safe:
case Id::property:
// etc for built ins
default:
// handle user ones here
}
If you were to define a struct safe {}, which is perfectly
legal D, and try to use it, you won't get what you expect.
It will trigger the case safe before it goes to the default.
So, the user defined one will just be quietly hidden.
I mean that "int" is a keyword and "int" is in the same "scope" as the
rest of the symbols. So if we allow custom attributes, like "@foo", it's
the same "problem" as with regular identifiers. Regular identifiers can
conflict with keywords.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
