On 11/6/2012 9:34 AM, dennis luehring wrote:
can't you please give us a bad-usage example why it is/should be forbidden to use UDA on parameters (and please - we are not talking about pure, in, out and stuff like that)
I believe this is the wrong question. For a new feature, the question should be "why should it be included", not "why shouldn't it be included."
For example, UDAs in general are not actually necessary. They can be faked using a naming convention, and such is very common. The trouble, though, is that if one uses UDAs a lot, then the complexity of the naming convention becomes unbearable.
It's become clear to me that UDAs can be used a lot, and so more targeted support for them is justified - i.e. a compelling use case.
It's hard to see that on parameters, though.
