r199053 - Clarify warn_cxx98_compat_attribute diagnostic

[Aaron Ballman]

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> After doing a bit more research and discussion off-list, I think
>> "generalized attribute" is acceptable.  So patch LGTM as-is.
>
>
> Really? I wouldn't expect someone seeing this diagnostic to understand that
> "generalized attribute" means C++11 attributes (it's a really weird term,
> since they're not a generalization of anything). This isn't an official name
> for them, and doesn't distinguish them from the other attribute syntaxes we
> support. Given that this is a diagnostic about compatibility with C++98,
> "C++11 attributes" seems like the clearest way of expressing this.

As Alp had pointed out, we document the name as "generalized
attribute" in our feature support documentation, and it's the original
name of the feature. Also, a quick google search of "generalized
attribute" yielded more results than "C++11 attribute" did (not saying
this was particularly scientific). So that's why I gave the LGTM on
the term.

That being said, my original preference was for C++11 attribute
instead, and as you point out, this is a C++98 compat diagnostic, so
using "C++11" would be clear. Perhaps I should have stuck with my gut
instead. ;-)

~Aaron