Don Wrote: > Leandro Lucarella wrote: > > Justin Johansson, el 30 de octubre a las 08:42 me escribiste: > >>> Actually, I think I like that better than 'traits'. > >>> > >>> -Lars > >> I'm in agreement with whoever suggested 'meta' or just about anything else > >> except 'traits'. > >> 'meta', whilst perhaps an overloaded keyword, is still much more > >> user-friendly. Whenever > >> I see 'traits' I get the feeling I need a Ph.D. to understand what it's > >> about. For some reason, > >> I don't know why, 'meta' has an aire of karma about it. > > > > "compiler"? That could open the door to other types of access to compiler > > internals, AST, etc. > > Yup. I think the 'magic namespace' approach is a simple, clean way to > incorporate reflection. It could be like Object and TypeInfo, implicitly > available in every module and tightly coupled to the compiler, but can > be viewed by the user as if it were just a module. It'd be particularly > interesting if some of the functions _were_ actually implemented in > library code, when possible.
What about going one step further? You could require an import statement to use traits. For example, import traits=std.traits could reproduce your earlier suggestion, but gives added flexibility to the programmer. It also eliminates a keyword.
