DIP6: Attributes

[grauzone]

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> For the record, I'm not really keen on using annotations for 
> *everything* as some people have suggested.  They have good uses, but I 

Me neither, but I think they'd be a worthy feature. Of course, there are 
far more pressing issues, but if Walter has time to introduce 
const/immutable/pure, then why not annotations?

> don't think it's worth adding them until we can have full reflection 
> capabilities so we can get at elements of code and therefore get the 
> annotations associated with it.  I see much more usefulness for 
> annotations as reflection hints than as a replacement for keywords.

But we already have full reflection. It's called __traits. You can build 
a serialization library or "proper" (user friendly?) reflection on top 
of it.