Thanks! I was hoping to see this type-annotation feature. But, sadly you do not like it.
I have some feedback and questions about your reasoning.
While I still seem to understand your point here: "It hard to tell what dependencies will be resolved based on container definition. You need to look at many different things at the time: a signature of the init method, container definition, base type of each class registered in the container"
I would love to see an example where this can be clearly visible. And I would love to see inject-by-name way to compare them. How does this sound to you?
2! Container definition can be split into different files which make it harder to read
But modularity is a good thing, isn't it? And how does this work with names? What is the difference? That's not clear to me at all.
3) Typo in "I hard"
4] That's a valid point about different subtypes, but is possible to solve. Once can use different subtypes to define what needs to be injected. Or it is possible to use a combination of type/name to solve this case
(I had to use different bullets styles, since gitter screws up the markup)