On 11/6/2012 8:47 AM, bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
It would be a significant extension, and so I'd like to see a compelling use
case first.
Right. Combined with the trait to read function arguments, it's useful to add
semantics to function arguments. This is good.
Ok, I ask again, what use case for a UDA is there for function parameters? (Note
that IDL isn't it, as D already has enough parameter attributes to support IDL.)
User defined attributes cannot invent new semantics for the language.
Right, that's my point :-)
So it cannot work for the use case you suggested. I'm still asking for a
compelling use case.
And besides, 'ref' already does what you suggest.
Nope. I have discussed the topic here:
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/znbtczbgipqqzllaf...@forum.dlang.org
"ref" is useful to denote Case2 of that post of mine. But the @copy annotation I
was talking here is the very uncommon (but unfortunately often used by mistake,
and common source of bugs) Case3.
I don't see how having the user add a UDA is better than having the user add
"const".
