On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 10:11:32 -0400, Manu <turkey...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6 April 2012 16:56, Steven Schveighoffer <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 09:53:59 -0400, Timon Gehr <timon.g...@gmx.ch>
wrote:
I think this proposal should be merged with Johannes' one.
It is very similar. I think the main distinction is that I focused on
the
fact that the compiler already has a mechanism to check and run CTFE
functions.
Except you're using a function, which I don't follow. How does that work?
Where do you actually store the attribute data?
Just attaching any arbitrary thing, in particular, a struct (as in
Johannes
proposal) is far more useful. It also seems much simpler conceptually to
me. It's nice when things are intuitive...
You can store a struct, just return it from an attribute function.
e.g.:
@attribute Author author(string name) { return Author(name);}
Why should we be restricted to only structs? Or any type for that matter?
The benefit to using CTFE functions is that the compiler already knows how
to deal with them at compile-time. i.e. less work to make the compiler
implement this.
I also firmly believe that determining what is allowed as attributes
should be opt-in. Just allowing any struct/class/function/etc. would lead
to bizarre declarations.
-Steve
