On 11/6/2012 12:20 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:> But shouldn't we keep the syntax
closer to normal attributes and other
> languages(*)? I see a lot of arguments for doing that, with the only
> counter-argument that they would be in the same namespace as the
> built-in attributes (which should not be that bad, as this is very low
> level language stuff).
>
> (*) i.e. @mytype or @("string") and without the '[]'
We can debate the syntax. I don't have a store set by this one. I was more
interested in getting the semantics right. Anyhow, it's nice to have a working
prototype to experiment with rather than a paper airplane.
