<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14/01/2014 03:10, Richard Smith
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOfiQqmWHWn6bAYSXde+sDOM8vLpkuBxGnrg_5vXQa=w5r-PSA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 6:37 PM,
Aaron Ballman <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:aaron@aaronballman.com" target="_blank">aaron@aaronballman.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im">On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Richard
Smith <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:richard@metafoo.co.uk">richard@metafoo.co.uk</a>>
wrote:<br>
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Aaron Ballman
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:aaron@aaronballman.com">aaron@aaronballman.com</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> After doing a bit more research and discussion
off-list, I think<br>
>> "generalized attribute" is acceptable. So
patch LGTM as-is.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Really? I wouldn't expect someone seeing this
diagnostic to understand that<br>
> "generalized attribute" means C++11 attributes
(it's a really weird term,<br>
> since they're not a generalization of anything).
This isn't an official name<br>
> for them, and doesn't distinguish them from the
other attribute syntaxes we<br>
> support. Given that this is a diagnostic about
compatibility with C++98,<br>
> "C++11 attributes" seems like the clearest way of
expressing this.<br>
<br>
</div>
As Alp had pointed out, we document the name as
"generalized<br>
attribute" in our feature support documentation,</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You're right, we did. I just fixed that.</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">and
it's the original name of the feature.</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>[citation needed]</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The proposal calls them "General Attributes for C++"
(and all previous revisions of it did the same); the word
"Generalized" seems to have been accidentally transferred
from "Generalized constant expressions" in the GCC list,
and we inherited that mistake when we sync'd our list with
theirs in r142015. The paper and C++ standard both call
them simply "attributes".</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Also,
a quick google search of "generalized<br>
attribute" yielded more results than "C++11 attribute" did
(not saying<br>
this was particularly scientific). So that's why I gave
the LGTM on<br>
the term.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Hah, it seems that lots of people copied our C++11
feature list and GCC's, picking up the wrong name =)</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
It may be a typo, but the C++ community has clearly adopted the name
"generalized attributes".<br>
<br>
I think we should take it and run with it :-)<br>
<br>
Reasons to do so:<br>
<br>
<ul>
<li>"C++11 attributes" don't work as a feature name when bringing
this to C11 as an extension or enabling it in proposed
next-generation OpenMP modes. It'd be bizarre to diagnose with
"C++11 attribute ..." in C11.</li>
<li>It feels old keeping the version of introduction in the name.
We don't do this with other features that have been published,
why introduce a special-case "C++11 attributes"?</li>
<li>Leaving the name as just "attributes" is ambiguous in this
context because users have got used to "attributes" referring to
the GNU form.<br>
</li>
</ul>
<br>
Alp.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAOfiQqmWHWn6bAYSXde+sDOM8vLpkuBxGnrg_5vXQa=w5r-PSA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">That
being said, my original preference was for C++11 attribute<br>
instead, and as you point out, this is a C++98 compat
diagnostic, so<br>
using "C++11" would be clear. Perhaps I should have stuck
with my gut<br>
instead. ;-)<br>
<span class=""><font color="#888888"><br>
~Aaron<br>
</font></span></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nuanti.com">http://www.nuanti.com</a>
the browser experts
</pre>
</body>
</html>