User Defined Attributes

alex info at alexanderbothe.com
Tue Nov 6 01:04:38 PST 2012


On Tuesday, 6 November 2012 at 08:55:06 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> Am 06.11.2012 09:26, schrieb 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.
>
> Definitely! Thanks a lot for tackling this, to me this seems 
> like
> something that can get a real killer feature for the language!

@test
void myUnittest()
{

}

Uh yeah, that would be awesome!


More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce mailing list