<div dir="ltr">From what I've seen @ is used for annotations, which apply to declarations. I've never seen them used as an attribute like <font face="monospace, monospace">foo.@bar</font>.<div><br></div><div><font face="monospace, monospace">foo.#behavior(lazy).clear()</font> seems clearer than <font face="monospace, monospace">foo.[lazy].clear()</font>.<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Brent Royal-Gordon <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:brent@architechies.com" target="_blank">brent@architechies.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>> Where [lazy] is currently used, could the syntax instead be #behavior(lazy)? That prevents a possible future naming clash, keeps the # meaning compiler-magic, and doesn't use the [], which is contentious.<br>
<br>
</span>I think that if we go down this road, @behavior(lazy) or just @lazy is strictly superior. We already have the @ sigil for attributes; we don't need to introduce another sigil for no apparent reason.<br>
<br>
(But unless we're going to use the latter syntax and say "all @s are behaviors, we just haven't formalized func/type/etc. behaviors yet" so we finally have an idea of what @ means, I don't think either of these syntaxes is better than the one proposed.)<br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
Brent Royal-Gordon<br>
Architechies<br>
<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div>Trent Nadeau</div>
</div></div></div>