On 2013-06-11 18:12, QAston wrote:
I agree that attributes should have types - that way it's easily recognizable what are they for in code. "Anonymous" attributes seem to me to be sort of like "you can throw ANYTHING in c++" feature - it's there, but probably without a sane use case. Could you explain to me what's the benefit of the @attribute convention you introduce? It seems non-obvious to me.
It shows the intent of the type. D both have a keywords to indicate an interface and an abstract class. In C++ interfaces and abstract classes are possible as well, but there's no real way to tell that a given class is actually supposed to be used as an interface.
I was kind of disappointed with the way D implemented UDA's. Just dump any value/type to a symbol.
-- /Jacob Carlborg
