digitalmars.D - Annotations or custom attributes
- Manu (13/13) Mar 09 2012 Does D have a nice way to add annotations or custom attributes to entiti...
- =?UTF-8?B?QWxleCBSw7hubmUgUGV0ZXJzZW4=?= (6/19) Mar 09 2012 Yes. This is a very needed feature.
- Jacob Carlborg (11/24) Mar 09 2012 Yeah, it would be so nice to have. As a workaround you can mixin some
- Dmitry Olshansky (7/8) Mar 09 2012 There is a potential for them. At least technically everything with @ in...
- Manu (4/14) Mar 09 2012 Okay, so the consensus is, it doesn't currently exist, but there is no r...
- bearophile (12/16) Mar 09 2012 As far as I know there are no concrete ideas yet for the
- Manu (4/20) Mar 09 2012 Okay, well I'll do that at some point, but not now. My other multiple
- Jonathan M Davis (10/13) Mar 09 2012 I wouldn't really say that it's tentatively planned. I don't recall Walt...
- Andrei Alexandrescu (14/27) Mar 09 2012 I think a good approach in D would be to define mixins that work in
- Gor Gyolchanyan (7/39) Mar 09 2012 That's easy to implement and extremely ugly.
- Jacob Carlborg (6/38) Mar 09 2012 As may serialization library Orange already does:
- Andrei Alexandrescu (4/7) Mar 09 2012 Saw that after posting. Cool!
- Steven Schveighoffer (5/14) Mar 09 2012 Please continue to quote the previous two messages for context if you fe...
- Ary Manzana (1/1) Mar 09 2012 What are you talking about?
- Steven Schveighoffer (9/10) Mar 09 2012 Who are you talking to?
- Andrej Mitrovic (12/16) Mar 09 2012 LOL. I was honestly wondering if this was an issue or not. I blame the
- Steven Schveighoffer (13/31) Mar 09 2012 I think it does, actually. It's just the post you are responding to isn...
- Andrej Mitrovic (7/9) Mar 09 2012 No problemo! I don't take things too seriously around this place (or
- H. S. Teoh (9/23) Mar 09 2012 [...]
- Steven Schveighoffer (5/16) Mar 09 2012 You should not delete old posts :) I find it invaluable for searching f...
- H. S. Teoh (11/30) Mar 09 2012 [...]
- Andrei Alexandrescu (9/18) Mar 09 2012 There are extremes, of course. I, for one, take pains to make sure I
- Jacob Carlborg (4/5) Mar 10 2012 I'll try to think about that.
- Manu (3/35) Mar 09 2012 Yep, that sure is horribly ugly! Sadly, that's what I thought the case w...
- Michel Fortin (16/31) Mar 09 2012 It's ugly, but it works… only to a point though. Try to annotate
- Manu (6/33) Mar 09 2012 ed
Does D have a nice way to add annotations or custom attributes to entities? time information. I'd like to be able to do that in D on occasion. For instance, I'm serialising some struct/class using reflection to some text format, but there are a couple of members in a particular class that I don't want to be written. A nice solution might be that I could annotate various members: DoNotSerialise int thing; ... or something along those lines, whatever concept you want to apply, which I could then inspect in static if() logic to produce some requested additional behaviour. useful things can be done with this sort of system. How would it be done currently?
Mar 09 2012
On 09-03-2012 11:56, Manu wrote:Does D have a nice way to add annotations or custom attributes to entities?Unfortunately, no.compile time information. I'd like to be able to do that in D on occasion.Yes. This is a very needed feature.For instance, I'm serialising some struct/class using reflection to some text format, but there are a couple of members in a particular class that I don't want to be written. A nice solution might be that I could annotate various members: DoNotSerialise int thing; ... or something along those lines, whatever concept you want to apply, which I could then inspect in static if() logic to produce some requested additional behaviour. useful things can be done with this sort of system. How would it be done currently?Probably not at all (to my knowledge anyway). -- - Alex
Mar 09 2012
On 2012-03-09 11:56, Manu wrote:Does D have a nice way to add annotations or custom attributes to entities?Unfortunately no.compile time information. I'd like to be able to do that in D on occasion. For instance, I'm serialising some struct/class using reflection to some text format, but there are a couple of members in a particular class that I don't want to be written. A nice solution might be that I could annotate various members: DoNotSerialise int thing; ... or something along those lines, whatever concept you want to apply, which I could then inspect in static if() logic to produce some requested additional behaviour. useful things can be done with this sort of system. How would it be done currently?Yeah, it would be so nice to have. As a workaround you can mixin some code, variables or similar in a class/struct. For serialization you could use my library Orange, which already supports this. You can have a look at the NonSerialized template at: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/18386187/orange_docs/orange.serialization.Serializable.html https://github.com/jacob-carlborg/orange -- /Jacob Carlborg
Mar 09 2012
On 09.03.2012 14:56, Manu wrote:Does D have a nice way to add annotations or custom attributes to entities?There is a potential for them. At least technically everything with in front of it was supposed to be an annotation (like property). I think it's just, sort of, reserved for future. [...] -- Dmitry Olshansky
Mar 09 2012
Okay, so the consensus is, it doesn't currently exist, but there is no real resistance, and is tentatively planned? Sounds good to me. On 9 March 2012 15:42, Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> wrote:On 09.03.2012 14:56, Manu wrote:Does D have a nice way to add annotations or custom attributes to entities? There is a potential for them. At least technically everything with infront of it was supposed to be an annotation (like property). I think it's just, sort of, reserved for future. [...] -- Dmitry Olshansky
Mar 09 2012
Manu:Okay, so the consensus is, it doesn't currently exist, but there is no real resistance, and is tentatively planned? Sounds good to me.As far as I know there are no concrete ideas yet for the semantics and precise usage of this feature. And I think there are different ideas regarding what this feature has to do (example: I think of it as as a user-defined extension of the Scala or Java ones). So if you want this feature to happen and you have good ideas, then I suggest you to write down a little concrete proposal of definition syntax/semantics (implementation isn't needed now). Bye, bearophile
Mar 09 2012
On 9 March 2012 17:20, bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> wrote:Manu: Okay, so the consensus is, it doesn't currently exist, but there is noOkay, well I'll do that at some point, but not now. My other multiple return values thread is about a thousand times more important to me at this point, so I'll keep driving that for the time being :Preal resistance, and is tentatively planned? Sounds good to me.As far as I know there are no concrete ideas yet for the semantics and precise usage of this feature. And I think there are different ideas regarding what this feature has to do (example: I think of it as as a user-defined extension of the type system. Other people think of this So if you want this feature to happen and you have good ideas, then I suggest you to write down a little concrete proposal of definition syntax/semantics (implementation isn't needed now). Bye, bearophile
Mar 09 2012
On Friday, March 09, 2012 16:00:03 Manu wrote:Okay, so the consensus is, it doesn't currently exist, but there is no real resistance, and is tentatively planned? Sounds good to me.I wouldn't really say that it's tentatively planned. I don't recall Walter ever weighing in on it at all, and no one is working on it. Rather, the current situation does not prevent it, and there's definitely some desire for it in the community, so there's a decent chance that it'll be implemented eventually. There are no plans for it though. Regardless, adding them should be backwards compatible, so it's really not a problem to wait until other more pressing issues have been addressed and the language has better stabilized before adding such a feature. - Jonathan M Davis
Mar 09 2012
On 3/9/12 2:56 AM, Manu wrote:Does D have a nice way to add annotations or custom attributes to entities? compile time information. I'd like to be able to do that in D on occasion. For instance, I'm serialising some struct/class using reflection to some text format, but there are a couple of members in a particular class that I don't want to be written. A nice solution might be that I could annotate various members: DoNotSerialise int thing; ... or something along those lines, whatever concept you want to apply, which I could then inspect in static if() logic to produce some requested additional behaviour. useful things can be done with this sort of system. How would it be done currently?I think a good approach in D would be to define mixins that work in conjunction with the feature involved, for example: class A { int thing; mixin(DoNotSerialize!"thing"); ... } or together: class A { mixin(DoNotSerialize!(int, "thing")); ... } Andrei
Mar 09 2012
That's easy to implement and extremely ugly. On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:On 3/9/12 2:56 AM, Manu wrote:n.Does D have a nice way to add annotations or custom attributes to entities? compile time information. I'd like to be able to do that in D on occasio=--=20 Bye, Gor Gyolchanyan.For instance, I'm serialising some struct/class using reflection to some text format, but there are a couple of members in a particular class that I don't want to be written. A nice solution might be that I could annotate various members: DoNotSerialise int thing; ... or something along those lines, whatever concept you want to apply, which I could then inspect in static if() logic to produce some requested additional behaviour. useful things can be done with this sort of system. How would it be done currently?I think a good approach in D would be to define mixins that work in conjunction with the feature involved, for example: class A { =C2=A0 =C2=A0int thing; =C2=A0 =C2=A0mixin(DoNotSerialize!"thing"); =C2=A0 =C2=A0... } or together: class A { =C2=A0 =C2=A0mixin(DoNotSerialize!(int, "thing")); =C2=A0 =C2=A0... } Andrei
Mar 09 2012
On 2012-03-09 17:15, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:On 3/9/12 2:56 AM, Manu wrote:As may serialization library Orange already does: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/18386187/orange_docs/orange.serialization.Serializable.html Look for "NonSerialized". -- /Jacob CarlborgDoes D have a nice way to add annotations or custom attributes to entities? compile time information. I'd like to be able to do that in D on occasion. For instance, I'm serialising some struct/class using reflection to some text format, but there are a couple of members in a particular class that I don't want to be written. A nice solution might be that I could annotate various members: DoNotSerialise int thing; ... or something along those lines, whatever concept you want to apply, which I could then inspect in static if() logic to produce some requested additional behaviour. useful things can be done with this sort of system. How would it be done currently?I think a good approach in D would be to define mixins that work in conjunction with the feature involved, for example: class A { int thing; mixin(DoNotSerialize!"thing"); ... } or together: class A { mixin(DoNotSerialize!(int, "thing")); ... } Andrei
Mar 09 2012
On 3/9/12 8:30 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:As may serialization library Orange already does: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/18386187/orange_docs/orange.serialization.Serializable.html Look for "NonSerialized".Saw that after posting. Cool! Andrei P.S. Please don't overquote, you systematically do so. Thanks!
Mar 09 2012
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 18:23:17 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> wrote:On 3/9/12 8:30 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:Please continue to quote the previous two messages for context if you feel like it. I enjoy not having to look back to previous messages. Thanks! -SteveAs may serialization library Orange already does: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/18386187/orange_docs/orange.serialization.Serializable.html Look for "NonSerialized".Saw that after posting. Cool! Andrei P.S. Please don't overquote, you systematically do so. Thanks!
Mar 09 2012
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:05:00 -0500, Ary Manzana <ary esperanto.org.ar> wrote:What are you talking about?Who are you talking to? :) Seriously, though, I think Andrej sometimes quotes *nothing* (no offense for picking on you Andrej), and couple that with the newsgroup's seemingly random decision to start a new thread, or put a reply at the same level, I sometimes have no idea what he's talking about :) -Steve
Mar 09 2012
On 3/10/12, Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote:Seriously, though, I think Andrej sometimes quotes *nothing* (no offense for picking on you Andrej), and couple that with the newsgroup's seemingly random decision to start a new thread, or put a reply at the same level, I sometimes have no idea what he's talking about :)LOL. I was honestly wondering if this was an issue or not. I blame the gmail quick-reply box. It has two options: quote everything, or quote nothing. Otherwise there's a full reply button and then I can quickly select a piece of text to quote. But I *thought* that by using quick reply without fully quoting it would mean my reply would sit right next to the last poster's reply. I'm just used to using forum software and when I do a quick-reply there my post is right below the last user's post, and it's easy to figure out who I'm replying to. Anyway, I'll stop posting replies to the void. :p (thanks for letting me know btw)
Mar 09 2012
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:53:29 -0500, Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> wrote:On 3/10/12, Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote:I think it does, actually. It's just the post you are responding to isn't always the last poster :DSeriously, though, I think Andrej sometimes quotes *nothing* (no offense for picking on you Andrej), and couple that with the newsgroup's seemingly random decision to start a new thread, or put a reply at the same level, I sometimes have no idea what he's talking about :)LOL. I was honestly wondering if this was an issue or not. I blame the gmail quick-reply box. It has two options: quote everything, or quote nothing. Otherwise there's a full reply button and then I can quickly select a piece of text to quote. But I *thought* that by using quick reply without fully quoting it would mean my reply would sit right next to the last poster's reply.I'm just used to using forum software and when I do a quick-reply there my post is right below the last user's post, and it's easy to figure out who I'm replying to.The forum software does not by default thread discussions, but my newsreader does.Anyway, I'll stop posting replies to the void. :p (thanks for letting me know btw)I hope you realize I didn't mean it in a bad/condescending way :) I realize we all use software that sometimes doesn't do the right thing, and it's not always our fault for liking some shitty software. But whose fault is it? Yours for using a forum-like software, or mine for trying to thread the newsgroup? If a tree posts a reply in the wrong thread, and the forest doesn't use threading readers, does anyone care? -Steve
Mar 09 2012
On 3/10/12, Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy yahoo.com> wrote:I hope you realize I didn't mean it in a bad/condescending way :)No problemo! I don't take things too seriously around this place (or the internets in general).But whose fault is it?I'd say it's the technology's fault. A newsgroup seems to be the equivalent of a source file, but with each person having a compiler with different semantics. Related: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fc1P-AEaEp8
Mar 09 2012
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:24:34PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:05:00 -0500, Ary Manzana <ary esperanto.org.ar> wrote:[...] You guys should just use a threading mail reader. Like mutt. :-P :-P (Though Ary's post didn't make sense to me either, because I'd deleted the parent post already. Ah well. The joys of impersonal online communication...) T -- I see that you JS got Bach.What are you talking about?Who are you talking to? :) Seriously, though, I think Andrej sometimes quotes *nothing* (no offense for picking on you Andrej), and couple that with the newsgroup's seemingly random decision to start a new thread, or put a reply at the same level, I sometimes have no idea what he's talking about :)
Mar 09 2012
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:58:37 -0500, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:24:34PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:You should not delete old posts :) I find it invaluable for searching for old discussions sometimes (I use opera with google-like searching). -SteveSeriously, though, I think Andrej sometimes quotes *nothing* (no offense for picking on you Andrej), and couple that with the newsgroup's seemingly random decision to start a new thread, or put a reply at the same level, I sometimes have no idea what he's talking about :)[...] You guys should just use a threading mail reader. Like mutt. :-P :-P (Though Ary's post didn't make sense to me either, because I'd deleted the parent post already. Ah well. The joys of impersonal online communication...)
Mar 09 2012
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 08:07:47PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:58:37 -0500, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:[...] While I agree with you on principle, after having accumulated YEARS of archives for several high-volume mailing lists in the past I'm starting to doubt the value of doing it. Sometimes the signal-to-noise ratio is just too low to justify archiving *everything*. So I usually only save threads that I find interesting and has lasting value and delete the rest (esp. since there's an online archive for it anyway). T -- In a world without fences, who needs Windows and Gates? -- Christian SurchiOn Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 07:24:34PM -0500, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:You should not delete old posts :) I find it invaluable for searching for old discussions sometimes (I use opera with google-like searching).Seriously, though, I think Andrej sometimes quotes *nothing* (no offense for picking on you Andrej), and couple that with the newsgroup's seemingly random decision to start a new thread, or put a reply at the same level, I sometimes have no idea what he's talking about :)[...] You guys should just use a threading mail reader. Like mutt. :-P :-P (Though Ary's post didn't make sense to me either, because I'd deleted the parent post already. Ah well. The joys of impersonal online communication...)
Mar 09 2012
On 3/9/12 4:24 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 19:05:00 -0500, Ary Manzana <ary esperanto.org.ar> wrote:There are extremes, of course. I, for one, take pains to make sure I quote about the "right" amount of context. I know it's time well spent because every second I save for one reader is multiplied by many of them. I think it's very jarring to see a 300-line discussion quoted and followed by a brief answer. If that much context is necessary, I'd have no business reading that message unless I actually followed the conversation. AndreiWhat are you talking about?Who are you talking to? :) Seriously, though, I think Andrej sometimes quotes *nothing* (no offense for picking on you Andrej), and couple that with the newsgroup's seemingly random decision to start a new thread, or put a reply at the same level, I sometimes have no idea what he's talking about :)
Mar 09 2012
On 2012-03-10 00:23, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:P.S. Please don't overquote, you systematically do so. Thanks!I'll try to think about that. -- /Jacob Carlborg
Mar 10 2012
On 9 March 2012 18:15, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org>wrote:On 3/9/12 2:56 AM, Manu wrote:Yep, that sure is horribly ugly! Sadly, that's what I thought the case was currently. Let's hope for user defined attributes in the future ;)Does D have a nice way to add annotations or custom attributes to entities? compile time information. I'd like to be able to do that in D on occasion. For instance, I'm serialising some struct/class using reflection to some text format, but there are a couple of members in a particular class that I don't want to be written. A nice solution might be that I could annotate various members: DoNotSerialise int thing; ... or something along those lines, whatever concept you want to apply, which I could then inspect in static if() logic to produce some requested additional behaviour. useful things can be done with this sort of system. How would it be done currently?I think a good approach in D would be to define mixins that work in conjunction with the feature involved, for example: class A { int thing; mixin(DoNotSerialize!"thing"); ... } or together: class A { mixin(DoNotSerialize!(int, "thing")); ... } Andrei
Mar 09 2012
On 2012-03-09 16:15:30 +0000, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> said:I think a good approach in D would be to define mixins that work in conjunction with the feature involved, for example: class A { int thing; mixin(DoNotSerialize!"thing"); ... } or together: class A { mixin(DoNotSerialize!(int, "thing")); ... }It's ugly, but it works… only to a point though. Try to annotate overloaded functions and it'll become a mess: either you duplicate the function name and all the argument types for each function, or you wrap the whole function body in the mixin. If you need to annotate a struct or a class you'll have the same problem, just at a bigger scale. And it gets worse if you want to annotate templated types and functions: how can the attribute apply to each instance? I'm not saying any of this is impossible using mixins, just that it becomes impractical as you go beyond the most simple cases. -- Michel Fortin michel.fortin michelf.com http://michelf.com/
Mar 09 2012
On 9 March 2012 19:23, Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> wrote:On 2012-03-09 16:15:30 +0000, Andrei Alexandrescu < SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org**> said: I think a good approach in D would be to define mixins that work inheconjunction with the feature involved, for example: class A { int thing; mixin(DoNotSerialize!"thing"); ... } or together: class A { mixin(DoNotSerialize!(int, "thing")); ... }It's ugly, but it works=E2=80=A6 only to a point though. Try to annotate overloaded functions and it'll become a mess: either you duplicate the function name and all the argument types for each function, or you wrap t=whole function body in the mixin. If you need to annotate a struct or a class you'll have the same problem, just at a bigger scale. And it gets worse if you want to annotate templat=edtypes and functions: how can the attribute apply to each instance? I'm not saying any of this is impossible using mixins, just that it becomes impractical as you go beyond the most simple cases.It seems to me that everyone agrees on the usefulness of proper user defined annotations, so I'm personally satisfied that it *will* come :) .. It's certainly not urgent for me, but it sure would be nice!
Mar 09 2012