Custom attributes (again)

[Walter Bright]

On 4/6/2012 2:18 AM, Ary Manzana wrote:
> On 4/6/12 3:54 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 4/6/2012 12:49 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
>>> What about type declarations? I think those ought to be supported too.
>>> E.g. it
>>> makes sense to mark an entire type as @attr(serializable) (or the
>>> inverse).
>>
>>
>> That would make it a "type constructor", not a storage class, which we
>> talked about earlier in the thread. I refer you to that discussion.
>
> What's the difference between "type constructor" and "storage class" beside the
> name?

static const(int)* foo;

static is a storage class. const is a type constructor. There is no type 'static'.