Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [aspectj-users] Method & constructor validation pointcuts

> @+Foo same as @(@(@(...(@Foo *))))?

yes, that might be reasonable.

Andy

On 12 September 2012 21:27, Matthew Adams <matthew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Multiple @s might be nice for finite levels of meta-annotations, but
> perhaps you could reuse the + operator since it's kind of
> inheritance-y.  How about:
>
> @Foo
> @(@Foo *) same as @@Foo?
> @(@(@Foo *)) same as @@@Foo?
> ...
> @+Foo same as @(@(@(...(@Foo *))))?
>
> WDYT?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Sep 12, 2012, at 7:04 PM, Andy Clement <andrew.clement@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> However, I'm still wondering if there is a general meta-annotation syntax,
>>> that is, one that will allow me to ask recursively if an annotation or any
>>> if its annotations recursively are annotated with a given annotation.  Seems
>>> like something having to do with a "+" pointcut operator, but I'm not sure.
>>
>> There isn't a syntax for this (there is an old bugzilla on it:
>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=325092 ).
>>
>> The initial syntax I was toying with was something around multiple @s
>>
>> @@Foo - matches an annotation whose type is annotated with Foo.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Andy
>> _______________________________________________
>> aspectj-users mailing list
>> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users
> _______________________________________________
> aspectj-users mailing list
> aspectj-users@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/aspectj-users


Back to the top