On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Joseph S. Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > On Sat, 7 Mar 2009, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > >> May I forward your message to the CCC++ CWG? > > Certainly, it is a public message, as are all the previous discussions it > references. I have not tried to engage with the C++ committee directly > since I am not a C++ expert and keeping up with C development and pointing > out (on the reflector and as needed in WG14 papers) when mistakes appear > to be being made there is quite enough. > > (Also, the points I make are influenced by the general acceptance in WG14 > that a major mistake C99 made was inventing new features and standardising > existing ones in ways that were *similar but different* to existing > implementations, through lack of understanding of the existing features, > so causing very slow adoption of C99 and compatibility problems down the > line, e.g. C99 versus GNU inline. This was accepted in writing the C1x > charter, but C++ may have different views on invention and compatibility. > The choice of [[]] syntax does at least mean that __attribute__ can do one > thing compatible with GNU practice and [[]] can do another thing as > described in C++0x, but such a difference is bound to be confusing to > users compared to making sure that attributes placed in the common subset > of positions in the syntax have standard semantics that accord with > existing practice.)
OK. I believe semantics differences matter a lot. My understanding is that the __attribute__ is found yucky for some people, hence the [[]] syntax. -- Gaby
