[Issue 13397] allow postfix function attributes like 'safe', 'system' and so on without '@'

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13397

Vladimir Panteleev  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords||patch
 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX

--- Comment #14 from Vladimir Panteleev  ---
Such language changes need to be proposed through the DIP process:

https://github.com/dlang/DIPs

Bugzilla is not the correct place for language enhancements. Without a DIP,
this patch will not be accepted, so there's no point in keeping this issue
open.

--

[Issue 13397] allow postfix function attributes like 'safe', 'system' and so on without '@'

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13397

bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc

--- Comment #1 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc ---
Contextual keywords as in C++? :-)

--

[Issue 13397] allow postfix function attributes like 'safe', 'system' and so on without '@'

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13397

Ketmar Dark ket...@ketmar.no-ip.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Attachment #1394|0   |1
is obsolete||
 CC||ket...@ketmar.no-ip.org

--- Comment #2 from Ketmar Dark ket...@ketmar.no-ip.org ---
Created attachment 1395
  -- https://issues.dlang.org/attachment.cgi?id=1395action=edit
postfix function attributes w/o '@' (better code, allows nogc {} and nogc:)

--

[Issue 13397] allow postfix function attributes like 'safe', 'system' and so on without '@'

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13397

--- Comment #3 from Ketmar Dark ket...@ketmar.no-ip.org ---
Created attachment 1396
  -- https://issues.dlang.org/attachment.cgi?id=1396action=edit
this must compile

--

[Issue 13397] allow postfix function attributes like 'safe', 'system' and so on without '@'

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13397

--- Comment #4 from Ketmar Dark ket...@ketmar.no-ip.org ---
Created attachment 1397
  -- https://issues.dlang.org/attachment.cgi?id=1397action=edit
this must fail 3 times with cannot use 'new' in @nogc

--

[Issue 13397] allow postfix function attributes like 'safe', 'system' and so on without '@'

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13397

--- Comment #5 from Ketmar Dark ket...@ketmar.no-ip.org ---
(In reply to bearophile_hugs from comment #1)
 Contextual keywords as in C++? :-)

why not? ;-)

it works, it looks nice, it doesn't breaking any existing code. and it looks
much cleaner than other way around (i.e. with '@' before each attr).

--

[Issue 13397] allow postfix function attributes like 'safe', 'system' and so on without '@'

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13397

--- Comment #6 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc ---
(In reply to Ketmar Dark from comment #5)
 (In reply to bearophile_hugs from comment #1)
  Contextual keywords as in C++? :-)
 
 why not? ;-)

Because it introduces complexity and the return of investment is minimal.

(In my opinion it's better to focus on problems of D/Phobos that fix
functionality holes, or add commonly useful functionality, or fix significant
bugs. There is not lack of all of them in Bugzilla.)

--

[Issue 13397] allow postfix function attributes like 'safe', 'system' and so on without '@'

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13397

--- Comment #7 from Ketmar Dark ket...@ketmar.no-ip.org ---
(In reply to bearophile_hugs from comment #6)
 Because it introduces complexity and the return of investment is minimal.

i don't think that making language slightly more human-friendly is of no value.
i don't like modern trend of making compiler to dictate user what to do when
compiler is perfectly able to cope with that issues itself.

why should i remember when i must put that '@' before attribute? there is no
ambiguity introduced by this patch, yet the patch allows me to forget what
function attributes are so special that they don't need '@' once and forever.

yes, this can introduce some complexity to syntax highlighters, but i don't
care: i believe that computer should make my life easier, not vice versa. if
this means more work for computer… ok, that's why we made computers, right?

we can't fix C/C++, but if D can be made human-friendlier with a trivial and
non-breaking change… why not?


 (In my opinion it's better to focus on problems of D/Phobos that fix
 functionality holes, or add commonly useful functionality, or fix
 significant bugs. There is not lack of all of them in Bugzilla.)

playing with parser is easy, and other tasks requires a lot deeper code
understaning. i'm doing what i can now. ;-)

--

[Issue 13397] allow postfix function attributes like 'safe', 'system' and so on without '@'

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13397

--- Comment #8 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc ---
(In reply to Ketmar Dark from comment #7)

 i don't think that making language slightly more human-friendly is

 why should i remember when i must put that '@' before attribute?

Adding contextual keywords to D is an increase in complexity for users too.

I think that remembering where to put the @ is simpler for the user.

--

[Issue 13397] allow postfix function attributes like 'safe', 'system' and so on without '@'

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13397

--- Comment #9 from Ketmar Dark ket...@ketmar.no-ip.org ---
(In reply to bearophile_hugs from comment #8)
 (In reply to Ketmar Dark from comment #7)
 Adding contextual keywords to D is an increase in complexity for users too.

aren't existing '@'-attributes are kind of contextual keywords too?

besides, things like '@safe' can be easily misunderstood as 'real' UDAs. so
compiler tend to ignore almost all UDAs except some special ones? but why?
there is no logic behind this execept that we don't want to add more keywords
to the language.

yet there is perfectly clear context for 'system', 'safe', etc: postfix
function attribute declaration.

the only thing that will break is delegate decls, i.e.:

  void foo (void delegate bar() safe)

this will declare nameless arg instead of declaring arg with name 'safe'. yet i
believe that there is no production/library code that using attr names as
variable names anyway. and this can be fixed by allowing such decl:

  void foo ((void delegate bar() safe) safe)

yes, it's ugly, but the alternative is yet another syntax for function
attributes, smth. like:

  void foo (void delegate bar() [safe] safe)

ah. do not want.


 I think that remembering where to put the @ is simpler for the user.
i believe that user should not even think about this. people kept asking me why
they must write '@safe', but not '@pure'. and in what module '@safe' UDA is
defined.

i'm ok with any decision: either 'all @' or 'nothing @', but the current state
of things is inconsistent and hard to explain to newcomers.

--

[Issue 13397] allow postfix function attributes like 'safe', 'system' and so on without '@'

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13397

--- Comment #10 from Kenji Hara k.hara...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Ketmar Dark from comment #2)
 Created attachment 1395 [details]
 postfix function attributes w/o '@' (better code, allows nogc {} and nogc:)

Combination of prefix attribute and contextual keyword feature will cause
ambiguity.

struct nogc {}
nogc foo() { return *(new nogc()); }   // func must not be @nogc

I think just only postfix cases should be accepted.

--

[Issue 13397] allow postfix function attributes like 'safe', 'system' and so on without '@'

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13397

--- Comment #11 from Ketmar Dark ket...@ketmar.no-ip.org ---
(In reply to Kenji Hara from comment #10)
 Combination of prefix attribute and contextual keyword feature will cause
 ambiguity.
 I think just only postfix cases should be accepted.

and my patch description clearly says that it's only for postfix function
attributes. ;-)

i strongly believe that we should deprecate and kill prefix attributes anyway.

one thing i did wrong is supporting for `nogc {}` and `nogc:` — i should check
for '{' and ':' before deciding if 'nogc' is identifier or attribute. have to
fix my patch.

--

[Issue 13397] allow postfix function attributes like 'safe', 'system' and so on without '@'

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13397

Ketmar Dark ket...@ketmar.no-ip.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Attachment #1395|0   |1
is obsolete||

--- Comment #12 from Ketmar Dark ket...@ketmar.no-ip.org ---
Created attachment 1398
  -- https://issues.dlang.org/attachment.cgi?id=1398action=edit
postfix function attributes w/o '@' (better code, allows nogc {} and nogc:)

fixed patch. now Kenji's sample is OK.

--

[Issue 13397] allow postfix function attributes like 'safe', 'system' and so on without '@'

[via Digitalmars-d-bugs]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13397

Ketmar Dark ket...@ketmar.no-ip.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Attachment #1398|0   |1
is obsolete||

--- Comment #13 from Ketmar Dark ket...@ketmar.no-ip.org ---
Created attachment 1399
  -- https://issues.dlang.org/attachment.cgi?id=1399action=edit
postfix function attributes w/o '@' (better code, allows nogc {} and nogc:)

fixed patch yet again. forgot to change Parser::skipAttributes().

--