Do implicits work with the annotated types? This can yield some nice benefits, like automatically doing a security check on a session object if the callee declares a @SecurityChecked annotation on the parameter. Having an extra "dimension" of type information will find many uses. RJ
Judson, Ross wrote: > Do implicits work with the annotated types? This can yield some nice > benefits, like automatically doing a security check on a session object > if the callee declares a @SecurityChecked annotation on the parameter. > Having an extra "dimension" of type information will find many uses. > That does sound useful, but it would mean that an annotation can change the behavior of the program even when no plugins are loaded. I lean towards Bracha's view, and that of Java's annotations, in suspecting this kind of overloading would be too tricky for programmers to understand what is happening. Thus, leaving aside reflection, the behavior of a program should not change if you remove annotations. What you could do, now, is *track* whether security checks have happened, and generate compile time errors if the programmer claimed something is @SecurityChecked when this cannot be verified. -Lex
Ooohhh... this sounds wicked cool. I'd love to hear "yes it works" and then see an example. Judson, Ross wrote: > Do implicits work with the annotated types? This can yield some nice > benefits, like automatically doing a security check on a session object > if the callee declares a @SecurityChecked annotation on the parameter. > Having an extra "dimension" of type information will find many uses. > > RJ >
Ooohhh... this sounds wicked cool. I'd love to hear "yes it works" and
then see an example.
Judson, Ross wrote:
> Do implicits work with the annotated types? This can yield some nice
> benefits, like automatically doing a security check on a session object
> if the callee declares a <at> SecurityChecked annotation on the parameter.
> Having an extra "dimension" of type information will find many uses.
>
> RJ
>
RSS Feed