Growing a Language (applicable to @attribute design)

[Timon Gehr]

On 11/14/2012 10:49 AM, renoX wrote:
> On Wednesday, 14 November 2012 at 00:54:07 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> [cut]
>> Guy makes the argument that users need to be able to extend the
>> vocabulary of a language and have those new words look like built-in
>> ones. We have that today, of course, with the ability of defining new
>> types. There is no special syntax that says "this is a user-defined
>> type, not a keyword."
>
> That's not strictly true: type inference works better for built-in types
> than for user-defined types, with "auto x = 1;" x is an int, how do I
> have the same type of syntax for MyInt?
> AFAIK I can't, that's why I have mixed feelings towards type inference..
>
> BR,
> renoX
>

(I prefer to call it type deduction. The term type inference has another 
meaning.)

I think you identified the wrong language feature as the cause.