Re: Source code annotations alla Java
On 12/10/14 1:16 AM, Denis Gladkiy wrote: On Thursday, 20 January 2011 at 13:49:30 UTC, Justin Johansson wrote: Not long ago the Java Language people introduced the idea of annotations together with an annotation processing tool (apt). Now perhaps the idea of source code annotations is not actually a Java invention per se, however for someone learning D is there any equivalent idiom [of Java annotations] in the D language? They are here: http://dlang.org/attribute.html#uda This is an almost-4-year-old thread. -Steve
Re: Source code annotations alla Java
On Thursday, 20 January 2011 at 14:04:54 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:47:28 -0500, Justin Johansson wrote: Not long ago the Java Language people introduced the idea of annotations together with an annotation processing tool (apt). Now perhaps the idea of source code annotations is not actually a Java invention per se, however for someone learning D is there any equivalent idiom [of Java annotations] in the D language? Haven't used Java since they added annotations, but I think they are like C# attributes? Yes, this is one case where Java copied back from C#. -- Paulo
Re: Source code annotations alla Java
On Thursday, 20 January 2011 at 13:49:30 UTC, Justin Johansson wrote: Not long ago the Java Language people introduced the idea of annotations together with an annotation processing tool (apt). Now perhaps the idea of source code annotations is not actually a Java invention per se, however for someone learning D is there any equivalent idiom [of Java annotations] in the D language? They are here: http://dlang.org/attribute.html#uda
Re: Source code annotations alla Java
On Thursday, 20 January 2011 at 18:19:21 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2011-01-20 14:47, Justin Johansson wrote:
Not long ago the Java Language people introduced the idea of
annotations
together with an annotation processing tool (apt).
Now perhaps the idea of source code annotations is not
actually a Java
invention per se, however for someone learning D is there any
equivalent
idiom [of Java annotations] in the D language?
Depending on what you want to do you can create a template
mixin that accepts string(s)/alias(es). For example: for the
serialization library (http://dsource.org/projects/orange) I'm
working on the following syntax is used:
class Foo
{
int x;
int y;
int z;
mixin NonSerialized!(z);
}
The above mixin indicates that the "z" instance variable
shouldn't be serialized. This is (currently) achieved by
defining a field in the mixed in template (which will be added
to the class) which is a struct containing the string of the
filed which shouldn't be serialized. Then I iterate over all
the fields in the class with .tupleof and collects all mixed in
fields in a list. Then I know what fields to skip later during
the serialization.
let's assume you are building a web application and you want to
keep that controller only for the logged in users. in java you
can create an annotation class called @RequireLogin and put your
logic there. mixins are not the way for this.
Re: Source code annotations alla Java
On Friday, 21 January 2011 at 20:50:39 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Friday, January 21, 2011 12:36:23 Ary Manzana wrote:
On 1/20/11 5:48 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2011-01-20 21:34, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:03:55 -0500, Jacob Carlborg
>> wrote:
>>> On 2011-01-20 19:18, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:07:58 -0500, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
> On 2011-01-20 15:02, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:47:28 -0500, Justin Johansson
>>
>>
>> wrote:
>>> Not long ago the Java Language people introduced the
>>> idea of
>>> annotations together with an annotation processing
>>> tool (apt).
>>>
>>> Now perhaps the idea of source code annotations is not
>>> actually a
>>> Java
>>> invention per se, however for someone learning D is
>>> there any
>>> equivalent idiom [of Java annotations] in the D
>>> language?
>>
>> Haven't used Java since they added annotations, but I
>> think they are
>> like C# attributes?
>>
>> In any case, D has an annotation syntax like:
>>
>> @property
>>
>> But I think at the moment, annotations have no custom
>> ability. Only
>> compiler-defined annotations are allowed. This may
>> change in the
>> future,
>> but probably not short-term. FWIW, I think we need a
>> much richer
>> runtime-reflection capability before we can use custom
>> annotations
>> to any great effect.
>>
>> -Steve
>
> I would rather formulate it like: currently D has a
> syntax for
> keywords that are similar to Java annotations.
I don't think it's the same thing. Keywords are not
allowed to be used
anywhere else, even for things that would parse properly
were they not
keywords. They are anchors for the parser to determine
where it is. In
contrast, a compiler-defined annotation is parsed just
the same as a
custom one, it's just that the meaning is predefined.
For example, you can legally do:
int property;
without error, but this won't even get past the parsing
stage:
int struct;
-Steve
>>>
>>> I assume you meant "int @property;"?
>>
>> No. I meant int property;
>
> Of course that would work, isn't that like saying this won't
> work:
>
> int struct_; // ?
>
>> A keyword is specifically not allowed where the grammar
>> would otherwise
>> allow it. A symbol isn't allowed to have @ in it, so this
>> naturally
>> prevents a conflict. I realize the poor example, but it's
>> definitely not
>> a keyword. Otherwise, it would be listed here:
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/lex.html#keyword
>> (actually, are
>> annotations part of the lexical grammar there?).
>>
>> It's more like Object, which is not a keyword, but you
>> aren't allowed to
>> use it to mean anything besides what it means.
>>
>> The end result is, it fails if you use it in the wrong
>> place, but the
>> keyword status makes it fail at the parsing stage. I am not
>> a compiler
>> writer, so I'm talking a bit from my ass here.
>>
>> -Steve
>
> Ok, maybe you're right. I'm pretty sure, as you say, that a
> keyword in
> the wrong place would fail during parsing. But I don't know
> where a
> misplaced annotation/attribute would fail.
Jacob is right here.
This, as you say, fails:
int struct;
And also this fails:
int @property;
So yes, currently @property is just a keyword with a prepended
@.
Annotations in Java anc C# can have arguments. That is not the
case in
D. For example, as it is said in DIP6, you could have:
@extern('C')
void someFunc();
instead of having extern a keyword and thus being unable to
use it for
identifiers.
No. No attributes are keywords. The reasoning is simple. A
keyword is a word
that would be a valid identifier but isn't, because the
language treats it as
special. @ is not a valid part of an identifier. So, @property
can't be a
keyword. And property certainly isn't a keyword, since you
_can_ use it as an
identifier, so it isn't a keyword with @ prepended on either.
True, @property is treated as a special symbol by the compiler,
and I don't
expect that it really treats it like an attribute with the name
property (which
it will pretty much have to do if we ever get user-defined
attributes), but
definitely isn't a keyword, because it was never possible for
it to be a valid
identifier in the first place.
- Jonathan M Davis
I see eclipse4 used java annotations heavily to mark up code
for dependency injection in the new ide framework.
Someone recommended use of mixin in this thread, in place of the
java use of user defined annotations. Is that still the
recommended D solution for handling ports of java annotations?
https://wiki.eclipse.org/Eclipse4/RCP/Dependency_Injection
Re: Source code annotations alla Java
On Friday, January 21, 2011 12:36:23 Ary Manzana wrote:
> On 1/20/11 5:48 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> > On 2011-01-20 21:34, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> >> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:03:55 -0500, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> >>> On 2011-01-20 19:18, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:07:58 -0500, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> > On 2011-01-20 15:02, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> >> On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:47:28 -0500, Justin Johansson
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>> Not long ago the Java Language people introduced the idea of
> >>> annotations together with an annotation processing tool (apt).
> >>>
> >>> Now perhaps the idea of source code annotations is not actually a
> >>> Java
> >>> invention per se, however for someone learning D is there any
> >>> equivalent idiom [of Java annotations] in the D language?
> >>
> >> Haven't used Java since they added annotations, but I think they are
> >> like C# attributes?
> >>
> >> In any case, D has an annotation syntax like:
> >>
> >> @property
> >>
> >> But I think at the moment, annotations have no custom ability. Only
> >> compiler-defined annotations are allowed. This may change in the
> >> future,
> >> but probably not short-term. FWIW, I think we need a much richer
> >> runtime-reflection capability before we can use custom annotations
> >> to any great effect.
> >>
> >> -Steve
> >
> > I would rather formulate it like: currently D has a syntax for
> > keywords that are similar to Java annotations.
>
> I don't think it's the same thing. Keywords are not allowed to be used
> anywhere else, even for things that would parse properly were they not
> keywords. They are anchors for the parser to determine where it is. In
> contrast, a compiler-defined annotation is parsed just the same as a
> custom one, it's just that the meaning is predefined.
>
> For example, you can legally do:
>
> int property;
>
> without error, but this won't even get past the parsing stage:
>
> int struct;
>
> -Steve
> >>>
> >>> I assume you meant "int @property;"?
> >>
> >> No. I meant int property;
> >
> > Of course that would work, isn't that like saying this won't work:
> >
> > int struct_; // ?
> >
> >> A keyword is specifically not allowed where the grammar would otherwise
> >> allow it. A symbol isn't allowed to have @ in it, so this naturally
> >> prevents a conflict. I realize the poor example, but it's definitely not
> >> a keyword. Otherwise, it would be listed here:
> >> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/lex.html#keyword (actually, are
> >> annotations part of the lexical grammar there?).
> >>
> >> It's more like Object, which is not a keyword, but you aren't allowed to
> >> use it to mean anything besides what it means.
> >>
> >> The end result is, it fails if you use it in the wrong place, but the
> >> keyword status makes it fail at the parsing stage. I am not a compiler
> >> writer, so I'm talking a bit from my ass here.
> >>
> >> -Steve
> >
> > Ok, maybe you're right. I'm pretty sure, as you say, that a keyword in
> > the wrong place would fail during parsing. But I don't know where a
> > misplaced annotation/attribute would fail.
>
> Jacob is right here.
>
> This, as you say, fails:
>
> int struct;
>
> And also this fails:
>
> int @property;
>
> So yes, currently @property is just a keyword with a prepended @.
>
> Annotations in Java anc C# can have arguments. That is not the case in
> D. For example, as it is said in DIP6, you could have:
>
> @extern('C')
> void someFunc();
>
> instead of having extern a keyword and thus being unable to use it for
> identifiers.
No. No attributes are keywords. The reasoning is simple. A keyword is a word
that would be a valid identifier but isn't, because the language treats it as
special. @ is not a valid part of an identifier. So, @property can't be a
keyword. And property certainly isn't a keyword, since you _can_ use it as an
identifier, so it isn't a keyword with @ prepended on either.
True, @property is treated as a special symbol by the compiler, and I don't
expect that it really treats it like an attribute with the name property (which
it will pretty much have to do if we ever get user-defined attributes), but
definitely isn't a keyword, because it was never possible for it to be a valid
identifier in the first place.
- Jonathan M Davis
Re: Source code annotations alla Java
On 1/20/11 5:48 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-01-20 21:34, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:03:55 -0500, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-01-20 19:18, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:07:58 -0500, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-01-20 15:02, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:47:28 -0500, Justin Johansson
wrote:
Not long ago the Java Language people introduced the idea of
annotations together with an annotation processing tool (apt).
Now perhaps the idea of source code annotations is not actually a
Java
invention per se, however for someone learning D is there any
equivalent idiom [of Java annotations] in the D language?
Haven't used Java since they added annotations, but I think they are
like C# attributes?
In any case, D has an annotation syntax like:
@property
But I think at the moment, annotations have no custom ability. Only
compiler-defined annotations are allowed. This may change in the
future,
but probably not short-term. FWIW, I think we need a much richer
runtime-reflection capability before we can use custom annotations to
any great effect.
-Steve
I would rather formulate it like: currently D has a syntax for
keywords that are similar to Java annotations.
I don't think it's the same thing. Keywords are not allowed to be used
anywhere else, even for things that would parse properly were they not
keywords. They are anchors for the parser to determine where it is. In
contrast, a compiler-defined annotation is parsed just the same as a
custom one, it's just that the meaning is predefined.
For example, you can legally do:
int property;
without error, but this won't even get past the parsing stage:
int struct;
-Steve
I assume you meant "int @property;"?
No. I meant int property;
Of course that would work, isn't that like saying this won't work:
int struct_; // ?
A keyword is specifically not allowed where the grammar would otherwise
allow it. A symbol isn't allowed to have @ in it, so this naturally
prevents a conflict. I realize the poor example, but it's definitely not
a keyword. Otherwise, it would be listed here:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/lex.html#keyword (actually, are
annotations part of the lexical grammar there?).
It's more like Object, which is not a keyword, but you aren't allowed to
use it to mean anything besides what it means.
The end result is, it fails if you use it in the wrong place, but the
keyword status makes it fail at the parsing stage. I am not a compiler
writer, so I'm talking a bit from my ass here.
-Steve
Ok, maybe you're right. I'm pretty sure, as you say, that a keyword in
the wrong place would fail during parsing. But I don't know where a
misplaced annotation/attribute would fail.
Jacob is right here.
This, as you say, fails:
int struct;
And also this fails:
int @property;
So yes, currently @property is just a keyword with a prepended @.
Annotations in Java anc C# can have arguments. That is not the case in
D. For example, as it is said in DIP6, you could have:
@extern('C')
void someFunc();
instead of having extern a keyword and thus being unable to use it for
identifiers.
Re: Source code annotations alla Java
template foo (args...) {}
Does that work with aliases?
Well at least the following compiles:
template Foo(T...,)
{
int i;
}
int a,b;
alias Foo!(a,b) f;
Re: Source code annotations alla Java
On 2011-01-20 21:34, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:03:55 -0500, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2011-01-20 19:18, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:07:58 -0500, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2011-01-20 15:02, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:47:28 -0500, Justin Johansson wrote: Not long ago the Java Language people introduced the idea of annotations together with an annotation processing tool (apt). Now perhaps the idea of source code annotations is not actually a Java invention per se, however for someone learning D is there any equivalent idiom [of Java annotations] in the D language? Haven't used Java since they added annotations, but I think they are like C# attributes? In any case, D has an annotation syntax like: @property But I think at the moment, annotations have no custom ability. Only compiler-defined annotations are allowed. This may change in the future, but probably not short-term. FWIW, I think we need a much richer runtime-reflection capability before we can use custom annotations to any great effect. -Steve I would rather formulate it like: currently D has a syntax for keywords that are similar to Java annotations. I don't think it's the same thing. Keywords are not allowed to be used anywhere else, even for things that would parse properly were they not keywords. They are anchors for the parser to determine where it is. In contrast, a compiler-defined annotation is parsed just the same as a custom one, it's just that the meaning is predefined. For example, you can legally do: int property; without error, but this won't even get past the parsing stage: int struct; -Steve I assume you meant "int @property;"? No. I meant int property; Of course that would work, isn't that like saying this won't work: int struct_; // ? A keyword is specifically not allowed where the grammar would otherwise allow it. A symbol isn't allowed to have @ in it, so this naturally prevents a conflict. I realize the poor example, but it's definitely not a keyword. Otherwise, it would be listed here: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/lex.html#keyword (actually, are annotations part of the lexical grammar there?). It's more like Object, which is not a keyword, but you aren't allowed to use it to mean anything besides what it means. The end result is, it fails if you use it in the wrong place, but the keyword status makes it fail at the parsing stage. I am not a compiler writer, so I'm talking a bit from my ass here. -Steve Ok, maybe you're right. I'm pretty sure, as you say, that a keyword in the wrong place would fail during parsing. But I don't know where a misplaced annotation/attribute would fail. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: Source code annotations alla Java
On 2011-01-20 20:10, Trass3r wrote:
class Foo
{
int x;
int y;
int z;
mixin NonSerialized!(z);
}
Had a quick look at
http://dsource.org/projects/orange/browser/orange/serialization/Serializable.d
1. How come it works without 'mixin' in the template declaration (mixin
template NonSerialized)?
I think it's optional, it works with DMD 2.052
2. What if several fields need to be tagged?
You use the mixin several times.
3. Is there a reason to use a struct instead of e.g. __nonSerialized =
["field1", "field2", ...]?
Hmm, I think I had a good reason. First it needs to be const so it works
during compile time. But I think I used a struct because I used that on
another project which required more data than just then name the field.
If I would store it in an array you could only do the mixin once, I
think. And that would require you to use strings instead of aliases, I
think.
template foo (args...) {}
Does that work with aliases?
4. Couldn't that field be static to save space or maybe even enum?
That field should absolutely be static, I'm currently working on fixing
that. I didn't think of that when I implemented it. This will also only
work with one mixin (see the answer for the third comment).
--
/Jacob Carlborg
Re: Source code annotations alla Java
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:03:55 -0500, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2011-01-20 19:18, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:07:58 -0500, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2011-01-20 15:02, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:47:28 -0500, Justin Johansson wrote: Not long ago the Java Language people introduced the idea of annotations together with an annotation processing tool (apt). Now perhaps the idea of source code annotations is not actually a Java invention per se, however for someone learning D is there any equivalent idiom [of Java annotations] in the D language? Haven't used Java since they added annotations, but I think they are like C# attributes? In any case, D has an annotation syntax like: @property But I think at the moment, annotations have no custom ability. Only compiler-defined annotations are allowed. This may change in the future, but probably not short-term. FWIW, I think we need a much richer runtime-reflection capability before we can use custom annotations to any great effect. -Steve I would rather formulate it like: currently D has a syntax for keywords that are similar to Java annotations. I don't think it's the same thing. Keywords are not allowed to be used anywhere else, even for things that would parse properly were they not keywords. They are anchors for the parser to determine where it is. In contrast, a compiler-defined annotation is parsed just the same as a custom one, it's just that the meaning is predefined. For example, you can legally do: int property; without error, but this won't even get past the parsing stage: int struct; -Steve I assume you meant "int @property;"? No. I meant int property; A keyword is specifically not allowed where the grammar would otherwise allow it. A symbol isn't allowed to have @ in it, so this naturally prevents a conflict. I realize the poor example, but it's definitely not a keyword. Otherwise, it would be listed here: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/lex.html#keyword (actually, are annotations part of the lexical grammar there?). It's more like Object, which is not a keyword, but you aren't allowed to use it to mean anything besides what it means. The end result is, it fails if you use it in the wrong place, but the keyword status makes it fail at the parsing stage. I am not a compiler writer, so I'm talking a bit from my ass here. -Steve
Re: Source code annotations alla Java
On 2011-01-20 19:18, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:07:58 -0500, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2011-01-20 15:02, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:47:28 -0500, Justin Johansson wrote: Not long ago the Java Language people introduced the idea of annotations together with an annotation processing tool (apt). Now perhaps the idea of source code annotations is not actually a Java invention per se, however for someone learning D is there any equivalent idiom [of Java annotations] in the D language? Haven't used Java since they added annotations, but I think they are like C# attributes? In any case, D has an annotation syntax like: @property But I think at the moment, annotations have no custom ability. Only compiler-defined annotations are allowed. This may change in the future, but probably not short-term. FWIW, I think we need a much richer runtime-reflection capability before we can use custom annotations to any great effect. -Steve I would rather formulate it like: currently D has a syntax for keywords that are similar to Java annotations. I don't think it's the same thing. Keywords are not allowed to be used anywhere else, even for things that would parse properly were they not keywords. They are anchors for the parser to determine where it is. In contrast, a compiler-defined annotation is parsed just the same as a custom one, it's just that the meaning is predefined. For example, you can legally do: int property; without error, but this won't even get past the parsing stage: int struct; -Steve I assume you meant "int @property;"? -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: Source code annotations alla Java
Trass3r wrote:
class Foo
{
int x;
int y;
int z;
mixin NonSerialized!(z);
}
Had a quick look at
http://dsource.org/projects/orange/browser/orange/serialization/Serializable.d
1. How come it works without 'mixin' in the template declaration (mixin
template NonSerialized)?
Templates are not currently required to be marked as mixin templates in
order to
be used as such. However, a mixin template can only be instantiated as a
mixin.
--
Simen
Re: Source code annotations alla Java
class Foo
{
int x;
int y;
int z;
mixin NonSerialized!(z);
}
Had a quick look at
http://dsource.org/projects/orange/browser/orange/serialization/Serializable.d
1. How come it works without 'mixin' in the template declaration (mixin
template NonSerialized)?
2. What if several fields need to be tagged?
3. Is there a reason to use a struct instead of e.g. __nonSerialized =
["field1", "field2", ...]?
4. Couldn't that field be static to save space or maybe even enum?
Re: Source code annotations alla Java
On 2011-01-20 14:47, Justin Johansson wrote:
Not long ago the Java Language people introduced the idea of annotations
together with an annotation processing tool (apt).
Now perhaps the idea of source code annotations is not actually a Java
invention per se, however for someone learning D is there any equivalent
idiom [of Java annotations] in the D language?
Depending on what you want to do you can create a template mixin that
accepts string(s)/alias(es). For example: for the serialization library
(http://dsource.org/projects/orange) I'm working on the following syntax
is used:
class Foo
{
int x;
int y;
int z;
mixin NonSerialized!(z);
}
The above mixin indicates that the "z" instance variable shouldn't be
serialized. This is (currently) achieved by defining a field in the
mixed in template (which will be added to the class) which is a struct
containing the string of the filed which shouldn't be serialized. Then I
iterate over all the fields in the class with .tupleof and collects all
mixed in fields in a list. Then I know what fields to skip later during
the serialization.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
Re: Source code annotations alla Java
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 13:07:58 -0500, Jacob Carlborg wrote: On 2011-01-20 15:02, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:47:28 -0500, Justin Johansson wrote: Not long ago the Java Language people introduced the idea of annotations together with an annotation processing tool (apt). Now perhaps the idea of source code annotations is not actually a Java invention per se, however for someone learning D is there any equivalent idiom [of Java annotations] in the D language? Haven't used Java since they added annotations, but I think they are like C# attributes? In any case, D has an annotation syntax like: @property But I think at the moment, annotations have no custom ability. Only compiler-defined annotations are allowed. This may change in the future, but probably not short-term. FWIW, I think we need a much richer runtime-reflection capability before we can use custom annotations to any great effect. -Steve I would rather formulate it like: currently D has a syntax for keywords that are similar to Java annotations. I don't think it's the same thing. Keywords are not allowed to be used anywhere else, even for things that would parse properly were they not keywords. They are anchors for the parser to determine where it is. In contrast, a compiler-defined annotation is parsed just the same as a custom one, it's just that the meaning is predefined. For example, you can legally do: int property; without error, but this won't even get past the parsing stage: int struct; -Steve
Re: Source code annotations alla Java
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:47:28 -0500, Justin Johansson > wrote: > > Not long ago the Java Language people introduced the idea of annotations >> together with an annotation processing tool (apt). >> >> Now perhaps the idea of source code annotations is not actually a Java >> invention per se, however for someone learning D is there any equivalent >> idiom [of Java annotations] in the D language? >> > > Haven't used Java since they added annotations, but I think they are like > C# attributes? > > In any case, D has an annotation syntax like: > > @property > > But I think at the moment, annotations have no custom ability. Only > compiler-defined annotations are allowed. This may change in the future, > but probably not short-term. FWIW, I think we need a much richer > runtime-reflection capability before we can use custom annotations to any > great effect. > I would find it useful to be able to access annotations as part of compile time reflection, actually, but AFAIK no progress has been made on that front so far.
Re: Source code annotations alla Java
On 2011-01-20 15:02, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:47:28 -0500, Justin Johansson wrote: Not long ago the Java Language people introduced the idea of annotations together with an annotation processing tool (apt). Now perhaps the idea of source code annotations is not actually a Java invention per se, however for someone learning D is there any equivalent idiom [of Java annotations] in the D language? Haven't used Java since they added annotations, but I think they are like C# attributes? In any case, D has an annotation syntax like: @property But I think at the moment, annotations have no custom ability. Only compiler-defined annotations are allowed. This may change in the future, but probably not short-term. FWIW, I think we need a much richer runtime-reflection capability before we can use custom annotations to any great effect. -Steve I would rather formulate it like: currently D has a syntax for keywords that are similar to Java annotations. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Re: Source code annotations alla Java
Justin Johansson Wrote: > Thanks for answer. I wasn't expecting many enlightening responses. > Yours was a pleasant reply, albeit a reflection of the current state of D. > > - Justin I think it is worth mentioning that the current syntax comes from DIP 6 http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel/DIPs/DIP6 As whether custom annotations will happen, I haven't heard an official word. But it was somewhat an implied intent.
Re: Source code annotations alla Java
On 21/01/11 01:02, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:47:28 -0500, Justin Johansson wrote: Not long ago the Java Language people introduced the idea of annotations together with an annotation processing tool (apt). Now perhaps the idea of source code annotations is not actually a Java invention per se, however for someone learning D is there any equivalent idiom [of Java annotations] in the D language? Haven't used Java since they added annotations, but I think they are like C# attributes? In any case, D has an annotation syntax like: @property But I think at the moment, annotations have no custom ability. Only compiler-defined annotations are allowed. This may change in the future, but probably not short-term. FWIW, I think we need a much richer runtime-reflection capability before we can use custom annotations to any great effect. -Steve Thanks for answer. I wasn't expecting many enlightening responses. Yours was a pleasant reply, albeit a reflection of the current state of D. - Justin
Re: Source code annotations alla Java
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011 08:47:28 -0500, Justin Johansson wrote: Not long ago the Java Language people introduced the idea of annotations together with an annotation processing tool (apt). Now perhaps the idea of source code annotations is not actually a Java invention per se, however for someone learning D is there any equivalent idiom [of Java annotations] in the D language? Haven't used Java since they added annotations, but I think they are like C# attributes? In any case, D has an annotation syntax like: @property But I think at the moment, annotations have no custom ability. Only compiler-defined annotations are allowed. This may change in the future, but probably not short-term. FWIW, I think we need a much richer runtime-reflection capability before we can use custom annotations to any great effect. -Steve
Re: Source code annotations alla Java
On 21/01/11 00:47, Justin Johansson wrote: Not long ago the Java Language people introduced the idea of annotations together with an annotation processing tool (apt). Now perhaps the idea of source code annotations is not actually a Java invention per se, however for someone learning D is there any equivalent idiom [of Java annotations] in the D language? Fair to add that while finding the Java Language annotation concept interesting I am not entirely sure as to its usefulness. Thanks for answers, Justin Johansson
Source code annotations alla Java
Not long ago the Java Language people introduced the idea of annotations together with an annotation processing tool (apt). Now perhaps the idea of source code annotations is not actually a Java invention per se, however for someone learning D is there any equivalent idiom [of Java annotations] in the D language?
