custom attribute proposal (yeah, another one)

[Manu]

On 6 April 2012 17:17, Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, 6 April 2012 at 14:11:42 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
>> Except you're using a function, which I don't follow.
>>
>
> It is pretty simple: the return value of the function
> is stored in the compiler, the same as all the other
> proposals.
>
> The struct thing is the same, really. You're just calling
> a constructor there instead of a regular function.
>
>
> Really, of the... what five proposals out there now? But
> they are all almost the same. A constructor, a function
> call, an expression, or a field initializor list all
> give the same result - they all return a piece of data,
> which is attached to the declaration in the compiler.
>
> We're just quibbling over details. I say we just forget
> about that and pick one to make this happen.
>
> I barely even care which one right now.
>

Ah okay, I see now. You're just using a creator, instead of a constructor.
Yeah fine, whatever.
I'm not quibbling over details, it just wasn't clear to me at all from your
syntax what it was you were actually doing (see: intuitive).

The only thing I care about is that I can associate an arbitrary data
struct, and ideally, the syntax is intuitive and minimal.
I prefer to use the constructor personally (I think it produces a much
simpler/intuitive syntax), and I also like that the '@attribute' keyword is
not necessary in Johannes version, but I really don't care. Whatever works
best in practise, as long as the basic premise is met.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20120406/d6714462/attachment.html>