Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [aspectj-users] Revamping simplified ITD syntax

Simone Gianni schrieb:
> I agree with you both, we could use any kind of keyword, "intertype" applies
> to the first usage (ITD on a class) not on the second usage (annotate
> existing members), "on", "with", "declare .... on", "add ... to" all seems
> good to me. I'd keep it on plain old English words and avoid too academic
> terms.


Hi Simone,

just wanted to say, as a (rather) power user of AspectJ, I especially
liked the keyword "on". To me it communicates the meaning very clearly
in almost natural language.

I often found parts of the AspectJ syntax to be a source for "alienation"
and repudiation by java developers stumbling rather accidentally over
the use of Aspects, maybe because it is uses in a project they are
connected to in some manner. There is often the sensation that
"black magic" is going on which takes away control from the
developer.

I think, a syntax that is almost java but at the same time communicates
what is going on will be very helpful. Interestingly, for the initial
situation of just introducing a single member field, the original
AspectJ syntax fulfils this requirement. Just when introducing a
bulk of members and especially when combined with annotations,
things start to get confusing for the accidental reader.

Regards
Hermann V.



Back to the top