Am Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:53:09 +0200 schrieb Jacob Carlborg <d...@me.com>:
> On 2012-04-10 13:41, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > > On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 02:30:21 -0400, Jacob Carlborg <d...@me.com> wrote: > > > >> On 2012-04-09 23:49, deadalnix wrote: > >> > >>> If it is available at compile time, it is implementable at runtime as a > >>> lib. So you pay for it only if you use it, and you don't add feature in > >>> the language just because it is convenient. > >> > >> I'm not saying how it should be implemented, just that it should be > >> accessible at runtime. > > > > I think there was some confusion, read a quote of what you said: > > > > "I don't see why the attributes *should* be accessible at runtime" > > > > Emphasis added. I think you meant "shouldn't" > > > > -Steve > > Yeah, I did, hehe :) > > This thread is getting too long now. So in the end we more or less agree that Walter and others can implement useful attributes for compile-time, whereas runtime support is nice-to-have (or can be provided by a lib)? My intention is to make it easier for the one who implements them if runtime support proves difficult. -- Marco