3 ms·

Couple points: 1) Are you aware of the existing C++11 attribute syntax[1]? You can replace __stdcall with [[gnu::stdcall]], for example. 2) The only function-le

Couple points: 1) Are you aware of the existing C++11 attribute syntax[1]? You can replace __stdcall with [[gnu::stdcall]], for example. 2) The only function-level keywords in your example are noexcept, const, and inline. Of those, noexcept and const aren't really traditional attributes since they have significant semantic impact (e.g. on overload resolution.) 3) I don't see how the function declaration becomes less unwieldy with attributes. [1] https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/attributes https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/attributes

jcelerier 5y ago
> 3) I don't see how the function declaration becomes less unwieldy with attributes. To me [[__stdcall]] [[export]] [[public]] [[inline]] void say_hello(std::string_view const &name) noexcept; looks muuuch cleaner than what we currently have ; that is, public: __stdcall export inline void say_hello(std::string_view const &name) noexcept; I don't know why, even wihtout being used to this syntax it's easier for me to parse visually. I wonder if it's because visually the return type and the attributes are at the same "level" even though they are radically different things. Though ideally it would more be like [__stdcall] [export] [public] [inline] void say_hello(std::string_view const &name) noexcept; or @__stdcall @export @public @inline void say_hello(std::string_view const &name) noexcept; or whatever the metaclasses proposal, proposed