C++0x [[annotations]]

[Sektor van Skijlen]

Is there any official proposal for annotations in C++0x?

So far annotations have been "implicitly" used in many proposals as some
(usually) free-form text enclosed in [[ ]] (for example, n2493, n2509, n1943 -
not used in later updates). Is there any consistent proposal for the general
mechanism of annotations?
--
// _ ___ Michal "Sektor" Malecki <sektor(whirl)kis.p.lodz.pl>
\\ L_ |/ `| /^\ ,() <ethouris(O)gmail.com>
// \_ |\ \/ \_/ /\ C++ bez cholesterolu: http://www.intercon.pl/~sektor/cbx
"Java is answer for a question that has never been stated"

[Pete Becker]

On 2008-03-05 18:54:55 -0500, Sektor van Skijlen
<et******@guess.if.gmail.com.is.valid.or.invalidsa id:

Is there any official proposal for annotations in C++0x?

So far annotations have been "implicitly" used in many proposals as some
(usually) free-form text enclosed in [[ ]] (for example, n2493, n2509, n1943 -
not used in later updates). Is there any consistent proposal for the general
mechanism of annotations?

N2418

--
Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The
Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference
(www.petebecker.com/tr1book)

[Sektor van Skijlen]

Dnia Wed, 5 Mar 2008 21:43:50 -0500, Pete Becker skrobie:

On 2008-03-05 18:54:55 -0500, Sektor van Skijlen
<et******@guess.if.gmail.com.is.valid.or.invalidsa id:

Is there any official proposal for annotations in C++0x?

So far annotations have been "implicitly" used in many proposals as some
(usually) free-form text enclosed in [[ ]] (for example, n2493, n2509, n1943 -
not used in later updates). Is there any consistent proposal for the general
mechanism of annotations?

N2418

Ah, yes, overlooked. Tx.

--
// _ ___ Michal "Sektor" Malecki <sektor(whirl)kis.p.lodz.pl>
\\ L_ |/ `| /^\ ,() <ethouris(O)gmail.com>
// \_ |\ \/ \_/ /\ C++ bez cholesterolu: http://www.intercon.pl/~sektor/cbx
"Java is answer for a question that has never been stated"

[Pete Becker]

On 2008-03-06 11:19:37 -0500, "Alf P. Steinbach" <al***@start.nosaid:

>
There is a very large overlap in both notation and terminology, so a
direct adoption of this proposal could be very confusing to Windows
programmers...

Microsoft is well aware of the implications of this proposal and does
not oppose it.

--
Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com) Author of "The
Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and Reference
(www.petebecker.com/tr1book)