custom attribute proposal (yeah, another one)

[Kapps]

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.