On 7 April 2012 14:35, Kapps <opantm2+s...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, 7 April 2012 at 11:25:15 UTC, Manu wrote: > >> >> Generating a struct for an attribute is fine. It's not like you go on >> a custom attribute frenzy attributing everything with different stuff. You >> may have a few useful attributes, and those given by libs that you just >> use. >> Why can't you use alias template parameters in a struct definition in just >> the same way? >> >> Structs are definitely preferable in my opinion, for the fact that they >> can >> have methods and properties and stuff. If you get an attribute of >> something, being about to use methods on it, or access calculated data via >> properties will be useful. >> I see no reason to name an attribute differently than the thing that >> happens to define it. >> > > The calling methods is a valid point, however the method can return a > struct as well. > > Ultimately, I don't think it makes a large difference at all which is > used. I'm just leaning towards methods because there's less bloat, no > issues with this() like with a struct, and can be slightly simpler in > certain situations. > > Again, it's mostly minor things. I'd be quite happy with either approach. >
Yeah I'm happy either way. At the end of the day, I guess whoever actually implements the feature will just follow their preference ;)