On 04/06/2012 12:17 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 4/6/2012 2:18 AM, Ary Manzana wrote:
On 4/6/12 3:54 PM, 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.
What's the difference between "type constructor" and "storage class"
beside the
name?
static const(int)* foo;
static is a storage class. const is a type constructor. There is no type
'static'.
Still, the 'static' in
static struct S{
// ...
}
Affects S. Correct?
