On Fri, 06 Apr 2012 14:23:45 -0400, Mafi <[email protected]> wrote:
Am 06.04.2012 17:17, schrieb Adam D. Ruppe:
On Friday, 6 April 2012 at 15:07:04 UTC, Manu wrote:
But maybe the function approach has an
effect on the simplicity of the expression for a simple attribute,
like a single bool?
Meh, it is pretty similar:
struct Serializable { bool yes; }
bool Serializable(bool yes) { return yes; }
There's one difference I think.
struct approach:
struct Area { int x, y; }
Area sqare(int a) { return Area(x, y); }
//foo and bar are attributed the same
@Area(5, 5) int foo();
@square(5) int bar();
whereas with the function approach:
@area(5, 5) int foo();
@square(5) int bar();
foo and bar have different attributes.
The problem is you can't define forwarding functions because the symbol
is the attribute type. This seems to be a major problem to me.
I acknowledge this limitation. But we can also overload functions:
@attribute Area area(int w, int h) { return Area(w, h);}
@attribute Area area(int w) { return Area(w, w);}
Granted, area is not as obvious as square (it's actually a bad name, it
should be something like dimensions), but being able to have more than one
attribute of the same type I think is essential.
Also, if I see:
@square(5) int foo();
How do I know that I have to use __traits(getAttribute, foo, Area)?
Another possibility:
@attribute Area area(int w, int h) { return Area(w, h);}
@attribute Area area(Area a) { return a;}
Area square(int a) { return Area(a, a);}
@area(5, 5) int foo();
@area(square(5)) int bar();
-Steve
