www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.internals - RFC: DIP draft for "Compiler-defined Attribute Consistency"

reply Rune Morling <ermo serpentos.com> writes:
Hi All,

After asking around in the #d channel on the Libera.Chat IRC 
network, there seems to be consensus that it would make sense to 
propose an updated version of 
[DIP64](https://wiki.dlang.org/DIP64) that only focuses on 
Compiler-defined Attribute Consistency.

The current DIP draft can be found 
[here](https://github.com/ermo/DIPs/blob/compiler-defined-attribute-consistency/DIPs/1NNN-RM.md).

Comments very welcome.

Best Regards,

Rune Morling
Jul 12 2021
parent reply Dennis <dkorpel gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, 12 July 2021 at 22:20:04 UTC, Rune Morling wrote:

 Comments very welcome.


In Description:


 This could be achieved via suitable aliases.


I don't get this sentence, it sounds like `alias  pure = pure` 
but that's not how dmd works. I think you can scrap it without 
losing anything.


 Keywords that are only attributes (i.e. they are not also 
 storage classes or type constructors) will be need to be 
 deprecated.


You can be specific here: "`pure` and `nothrow` need to be 
deprecated".
Also this is not true, the DIP can explore the possibility of 
making the keywords undocumented but still have their function.


 To aid in this transition a tool could be constructed on top of 
 the lexer contained in the D-Scanner project


Find and replace also does the job, you just need to watch for a 
few false positives in comments and string literals where 'pure' 
is used as an adjective instead of referring to ` pure`. Such 
occurrences need manual review anyway, employing D-scanner 
doesn't help there.


 Various documentation (including the Dlang tour) will need to 
 be updated to reflect this change.


That speaks for itself.
Jul 12 2021
parent reply Rune Morling <ermo serpentos.com> writes:
On Monday, 12 July 2021 at 23:38:56 UTC, Dennis wrote:

 On Monday, 12 July 2021 at 22:20:04 UTC, Rune Morling wrote:

 Comments very welcome.




Thank you for the feedback.

I'm wondering if I should have posted the OP in General instead 
to get more eyeballs on it?

Are there any rules for cross-posting?
Jul 13 2021
parent Imperatorn <johan_forsberg_86 hotmail.com> writes:
On Tuesday, 13 July 2021 at 11:05:37 UTC, Rune Morling wrote:

 On Monday, 12 July 2021 at 23:38:56 UTC, Dennis wrote:

 On Monday, 12 July 2021 at 22:20:04 UTC, Rune Morling wrote:

 Comments very welcome.




 Thank you for the feedback.

 I'm wondering if I should have posted the OP in General instead 
 to get more eyeballs on it?

 Are there any rules for cross-posting?


I think you should post this on general. I only found it be 
accident 😬
Oct 03 2021