custom attribute proposal (yeah, another one)

[Manu]

On 7 April 2012 14:35, Kapps <opantm2+spam at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 7 April 2012 at 11:25:15 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
>>
>> Generating a struct for an attribute is fine. It's not like you go on
>> a custom attribute frenzy attributing everything with different stuff. You
>> may have a few useful attributes, and those given by libs that you just
>> use.
>> Why can't you use alias template parameters in a struct definition in just
>> the same way?
>>
>> Structs are definitely preferable in my opinion, for the fact that they
>> can
>> have methods and properties and stuff. If you get an attribute of
>> something, being about to use methods on it, or access calculated data via
>> properties will be useful.
>> I see no reason to name an attribute differently than the thing that
>> happens to define it.
>>
>
> The calling methods is a valid point, however the method can return a
> struct as well.
>
> Ultimately, I don't think it makes a large difference at all which is
> used. I'm just leaning towards methods because there's less bloat, no
> issues with this() like with a struct, and can be slightly simpler in
> certain situations.
>
> Again, it's mostly minor things. I'd be quite happy with either approach.
>

Yeah I'm happy either way. At the end of the day, I guess whoever actually
implements the feature will just follow their preference ;)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20120407/f706fa06/attachment.html>