[Issue 14389] The "(attributelist):" attribute notation scope of effect

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14389 Bolpat changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED CC|

[Issue 14389] The "(attributelist):" attribute notation scope of effect

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14389 --- Comment #9 from Ketmar Dark --- actually, "standard" is what developers decided to be standard. so if they will bless any variant, it will become standard syntax. ;-) the thing is that is is very-very hard (almost impossible) to convince develop

[Issue 14389] The "(attributelist):" attribute notation scope of effect

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14389 --- Comment #8 from Daniel Čejchan --- I would agree on that, that :: was just a first thing that came to my mind, but I have a feeling that the standard syntax should be used for temporary attribtes instead. I am aware that it would break some code.

[Issue 14389] The "(attributelist):" attribute notation scope of effect

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14389 --- Comment #7 from Ketmar Dark --- quickfix: class A { @safe: // this will last forever (nothrow): // and this will be reset on next `id:` } --

[Issue 14389] The "(attributelist):" attribute notation scope of effect

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14389 --- Comment #6 from Ketmar Dark --- simply resetting 'em all is messy too: then i have to repeat all that `@safe nothrow @nogc` yet again when i changed visibility from `private` to `public`, for example. and making visibility resets only visibility

[Issue 14389] The "(attributelist):" attribute notation scope of effect

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14389 --- Comment #5 from Daniel Čejchan --- n reply to Ketmar Dark from comment #3) > or simply introduce syntax to "unattribute" something. this is much more > useful, imo, and not breaking any existing code. > > this is very sad situation, as we can ov

[Issue 14389] The "(attributelist):" attribute notation scope of effect

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14389 --- Comment #4 from Ketmar Dark --- p.s. the funny technical note: compiler has no mention of "throw" or "impure" functions (i.e. you can't set that flags by simply changing the parser). what compiler has is three states (for `pure`, for example): "n

[Issue 14389] The "(attributelist):" attribute notation scope of effect

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14389 --- Comment #3 from Ketmar Dark --- or simply introduce syntax to "unattribute" something. this is much more useful, imo, and not breaking any existing code. by the way: class C { private: @safe: void foo() {} public: void asd() @system {} //

[Issue 14389] The "(attributelist):" attribute notation scope of effect

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14389 --- Comment #2 from Daniel Čejchan --- @Adam D. Ruppe:(In reply to Adam D. Ruppe from comment #1) > class C { >private: >@safe: > void foo() {} > } > > Should foo still be private? I think a lot of people use this pattern today > and ex

[Issue 14389] The "(attributelist):" attribute notation scope of effect

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14389 Adam D. Ruppe changed: What|Removed |Added CC||destructiona...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 fro