Re: [abc] this afternoon

>b) pattern expressions for annotations: @Foo*[Bar]
> (inexpressible in the ajc proposal)
>
>
Actually, that introduces another problem, brought up by Ondrej on IRC.

Consider the pattern @Foo* && *Goo[Bar]. What does it mean?
 - A Bar with an annotation starting with Foo and an annotation ending
with Goo, e.g. "@Foo @Goo Bar", or
 - A Bar with an annotation starting with Foo and ending with Goo, e.g.
"@FooGoo Bar".

The syntax as it stands can't distinguish between these two cases -- is
&& part of an annotation pattern, or an operator combining annotation
patterns?

... Still thnking of possible ways around this. Obviously the first case
can be emulated by splitting the pointcut into "@Foo*[Bar] &&
@*Goo[Bar]"... though that arguably could still have different semantics
-- are Foo* and *Goo allowed to apply to the same annotation (e.g.
FooGoo) in the two different versions? Intuitively, for the top - no,
for the bottom - yes...

- P
Received on Mon Dec 6 18:24:16 2004