User Defined Attributes

[Walter Bright]

On 11/6/2012 12:20 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:> But shouldn't we keep the syntax 
closer to normal attributes and other
 > languages(*)? I see a lot of arguments for doing that, with the only
 > counter-argument that they would be in the same namespace as the
 > built-in attributes (which should not be that bad, as this is very low
 > level language stuff).
 >
 > (*) i.e. @mytype or @("string") and without the '[]'


We can debate the syntax. I don't have a store set by this one. I was more 
interested in getting the semantics right. Anyhow, it's nice to have a working 
prototype to experiment with rather than a paper airplane.