On 06-04-2012 09:54, Walter Bright wrote:
On 4/6/2012 12:49 AM, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
What about type declarations? I think those ought to be supported too.
E.g. it
makes sense to mark an entire type as @attr(serializable) (or the
inverse).
That would make it a "type constructor", not a storage class, which we
talked about earlier in the thread. I refer you to that discussion.
To be clear, I don't want annotations on a type declaration to actually
affect the type. Annotations are just that: Annotations. Nothing else.
Does a design like that still give rise to the semantic issues you
mentioned (it isn't clear what those are)?
--
- Alex
