[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
|
RE: [aspectj-users] Language: support for modifiers in TypePatterns
|
...
>
> Let me clarify this. isInterface() is not a PCD. It is a new special form
> of TypePattern.
Sorry for the incorrect statement - it clearly isn't a PCD. While at first their similarity to a PCD seemed like an advantage to me, I actually think would be both confusing and it looks more awkward in practice.
> ... I'm troubled by the fact that it uses () where nothing will ever
> be allowed to sit between those parens. This seems like a small abuse >of the function-call syntax style.
Agreed. (Well, you can imagine even more convoluted forms where there would be arguments in there. But that's not something anyone is advocating)
On further consideration, I much prefer the use of the modifiers in the sets style: interface, class, aspect, inner, anonymous
It's consistent with existing AspectJ use. It doesn't lead to ugly syntax. It isn't surprising (like attributes on code you don't control) or misleading (like a function-style special form for type pattern). It avoids increasing the learning curve. And naming conventions for Java (and AspectJ) mean that almost nobody will have types with these names.
Ron
