C++0x [[annotations]]

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • Sektor van Skijlen
    #1

    C++0x [[annotations]]

    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)k is.p.lodz.pl>
    \\ L_ |/ `| /^\ ,() <ethouris(O)gma il.com>
    // \_ |\ \/ \_/ /\ C++ bez cholesterolu: http://www.intercon.pl/~sektor/cbx
    "Java is answer for a question that has never been stated"
    Tags: None
    • Pete Becker
      #2
      Re: C++0x [[annotations]]

      On 2008-03-05 18:54:55 -0500, Sektor van Skijlen
      <ethouris@guess .if.gmail.com.i s.valid.or.inva lidsaid:
      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)

        Comment

        • Sektor van Skijlen
          #3
          Re: C++0x [[annotations]]

          Dnia Wed, 5 Mar 2008 21:43:50 -0500, Pete Becker skrobie:
          On 2008-03-05 18:54:55 -0500, Sektor van Skijlen
          <ethouris@guess .if.gmail.com.i s.valid.or.inva lidsaid:
          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)k is.p.lodz.pl>
          \\ L_ |/ `| /^\ ,() <ethouris(O)gma il.com>
          // \_ |\ \/ \_/ /\ C++ bez cholesterolu: http://www.intercon.pl/~sektor/cbx
          "Java is answer for a question that has never been stated"

            Comment

            • Pete Becker
              #4
              Re: C++0x [[annotations]]

              On 2008-03-06 11:19:37 -0500, "Alf P. Steinbach" <alfps@start.no said:
              >
              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)

                Comment

                Previous template Next
                Working...