> @+Foo same as @(@(@(...(@Foo *))))? yes, that might be reasonable.
Andy On 12 September 2012 21:27, Matthew Adams <matt...@matthewadams.me> wrote: > Multiple @s might be nice for finite levels of meta-annotations, but > perhaps you could reuse the + operator since it's kind of > inheritance-y. How about: > > @Foo > @(@Foo *) same as @@Foo? > @(@(@Foo *)) same as @@@Foo? > ... > @+Foo same as @(@(@(...(@Foo *))))? > > WDYT? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 12, 2012, at 7:04 PM, Andy Clement <andrew.clem...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> However, I'm still wondering if there is a general meta-annotation syntax, >>> that is, one that will allow me to ask recursively if an annotation or any >>> if its annotations recursively are annotated with a given annotation. Seems >>> like something having to do with a "+" pointcut operator, but I'm not sure. >> >> There isn't a syntax for this (there is an old bugzilla on it: >> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=325092 ). >> >> The initial syntax I was toying with was something around multiple @s >> >> @@Foo - matches an annotation whose type is annotated with Foo. >> >> cheers, >> Andy >> _______________________________________________ >> aspectj-users mailing list >> aspectj-users@eclipse.org >> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users > _______________________________________________ > aspectj-users mailing list > aspectj-users@eclipse.org > https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users _______________________________________________ aspectj-users mailing list aspectj-users@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
