Don Wrote: > I agree that there doesn't seem to be a nice way at present. One > possibility would be to establish a naming convention for transient > fields -- a Ruby-style solution, I guess. > > But are annotations actually an ideal solution for this problem? > Presumably, you'll have to specify that somewhere else anyway. I mean, > during reading it will need to either be initialized separately after > serialisation (like opPostBlit, perhaps?), or else remain uninitialized. > Serialisation seems to be _extremely_ similar to construction. I'm not > sure that annotations capture that. > > D has much more powerful metaprogramming than C# or Java, so my > intuition and hope is that we shouldn't need to adopt hacks from those > weaker languages. The annotation syntax in C# and Java looks like an > ugly hack to me. Purely a subjective opinion, of course, but it seems > really out of place in a C-family language.
Here you considered functionality of only one attribute, XmlIgnoreAttribute. XML serialization in .net framework uses 17 attributes. For example you can serialize a field as an XML element or an XML attribute, how do you plan to handle this?
