I'm back

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2012-11-12 21:28, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> * I saw very little focus for attribute testing, i.e. "does symbol xyz
> have attribute abc"? I don't think we should relegate that to a __traits.

The current implementation only has __traits(getAttributes), which will 
basically return a tuple of all the values attached to a symbol. On top 
of that we can build library functions for checking if an attribute 
exists for a symbol.

> * The execution of that feature (merging in the trunk along with a bunch
> of unrelated work) was extremely poor. We need to acquire a sense of
> urgency about fixing our process, lest this mom-and-pop-shop style of
> getting work done will end up alienating our user base.

Thank you for acknowledging this.

What's also being discussed in addition to your points are:

* Should built in types be allowed as attributes
* Should only types explicitly marked as an attribute (somehow) be 
allowed as attributes

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg