On Tuesday, 6 November 2012 at 08:55:06 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
Am 06.11.2012 09:26, schrieb Walter Bright:
On 11/6/2012 12:20 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:> But shouldn't we
keep the
syntax closer to normal attributes and other
languages(*)? I see a lot of arguments for doing that, with
the only
counter-argument that they would be in the same namespace as
the
built-in attributes (which should not be that bad, as this is
very low
level language stuff).
(*) i.e. @mytype or @("string") and without the '[]'
We can debate the syntax. I don't have a store set by this
one. I was
more interested in getting the semantics right. Anyhow, it's
nice to
have a working prototype to experiment with rather than a
paper airplane.
Definitely! Thanks a lot for tackling this, to me this seems
like
something that can get a real killer feature for the language!
@test
void myUnittest()
{
}
Uh yeah, that would be awesome!
