On 04/06/2012 09:54 AM, 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.
I think what was discussed there is that
@attr(foo) int x;
Wouldn't change the type of x.
@attr(foo) struct Foo{}
Should add additional information to the type Foo. I don't see any
issues with it, and not supporting it would be very strange.
