custom attribute proposal (yeah, another one)

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2012-04-09 15:20, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

> The argument was to use the name of the type returned as the attribute
> name instead of the function. That is not my proposal. The suggested
> case is to be able to use a different name to build the same attribute,
> to be more intuitive.
>
> i.e. both area and square create the Area attribute, but square only
> takes one parameter because it's a square. Kind of like saying "the area
> is square".
>
> So my counter point above is in the context that the type name of the
> return value becomes the attribute name.
>
> -Steve


Aha, I see.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg