On Friday, 16 November 2012 at 13:12:34 UTC, Tove wrote:
On Friday, 16 November 2012 at 10:41:44 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
The whole point of my example was no, you do not necessarily
know the meaning of a user-defined type that is used as an
attribute.
Agree. Imagine we have 3 generic libs/modules...
"Optimized CTFE Polygon Primitive Lib", Math, Gfx
... and then the "end user", creates a program.
Both Math and Gfx, want to use the optimized Polygon in their
modules...
[Polygon(...)]
struct SpaceShip
{
}
This is just as ambiguous as if you had used a built-in
int:s... and it can be solved in the exact same way which I
outlined in the other thread.
I don't think this is a valid argument. I challenge you to find a
single real-world use case where an *annotation* would be so
complex that this would make any sense at all, yet it would be
impossible (or even just less clear) to just use a wrapper type
like @CollisionShape(Polygon(…)) or @RenderBounds(Polygon(…)).
David
