«

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"

On 2008-03-05 18:54:55 -0500, Sektor van Skijlen
< > said:

> 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)

Dnia Wed, 5 Mar 2008 21:43:50 -0500, Pete Becker skrobie:
> On 2008-03-05 18:54:55 -0500, Sektor van Skijlen
> < > said:

> > 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"

* 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
>> < > said:
>
>>> 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.

The N2418 paper[1] refers to some existing schemes but fails to mention the
broadly used existing scheme that is most like the one in the paper, namely
Microsoft's attribute programming[2] for Visual C++.

Which uses single brackets.

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...


Cheers,

- Alf (in the "let's not reinvent the wheel again" mood)


Notes:
[1] <url: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2418.pdf>
[2] General discussion in article <url:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc301337.aspx>, technical at <url:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/zkwy014e(VS.71).aspx>.

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

On 2008-03-06 11:19:37 -0500, "Alf P. Steinbach" <> 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)

Dnia Thu, 6 Mar 2008 11:48:00 -0500, Pete Becker skrobie:
> On 2008-03-06 11:19:37 -0500, "Alf P. Steinbach" <> 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.

Steps taken by Microsoft might be less interresting, as Microsoft had invented
C++/CLI, a language that has been evaluated by the ISO C++ standard committee
as a language that would draw people out of C++ standard.

Some time ago I read the document that the ISO C++ Standard Committee produced
after evaluating C++/CLI and the only thing that makes me wonder is that ISO
C++ standard committee did not sue Microsoft, as Sun did for J++ (for C++
there were even much stronger bases for violating the rules of the standard).
I state that there were some interresting reason why it did not happen.

Just btw.


--
// _ ___ 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"

Sektor van Skijlen wrote:
> Dnia Thu, 6 Mar 2008 11:48:00 -0500, Pete Becker skrobie:
>> On 2008-03-06 11:19:37 -0500, "Alf P. Steinbach" <>
>> 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.
>
> Steps taken by Microsoft might be less interresting, as Microsoft
> had invented C++/CLI, a language that has been evaluated by the ISO
> C++ standard committee as a language that would draw people out of
> C++ standard.
>
> Some time ago I read the document that the ISO C++ Standard
> Committee produced after evaluating C++/CLI and the only thing that
> makes me wonder is that ISO C++ standard committee did not sue
> Microsoft, as Sun did for J++ (for C++ there were even much
> stronger bases for violating the rules of the standard). I state
> that there were some interresting reason why it did not happen.
>

ISO just produces and maintains standards, it does not enforce them.


Bo Persson

Dnia Sat, 8 Mar 2008 10:38:52 +0100, Bo Persson skrobie:
> Sektor van Skijlen wrote:
> > Dnia Thu, 6 Mar 2008 11:48:00 -0500, Pete Becker skrobie:
> >> On 2008-03-06 11:19:37 -0500, "Alf P. Steinbach" <>
> >> 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.
> >
> > Steps taken by Microsoft might be less interresting, as Microsoft
> > had invented C++/CLI, a language that has been evaluated by the ISO
> > C++ standard committee as a language that would draw people out of
> > C++ standard.
> >
> > Some time ago I read the document that the ISO C++ Standard
> > Committee produced after evaluating C++/CLI and the only thing that
> > makes me wonder is that ISO C++ standard committee did not sue
> > Microsoft, as Sun did for J++ (for C++ there were even much
> > stronger bases for violating the rules of the standard). I state
> > that there were some interresting reason why it did not happen.
> >

> ISO just produces and maintains standards, it does not enforce them.

Yes, but the problem is that their implementation of C++/CLI works against
standard C++, especially that they recall their implementation as "C++". If
they called it, say, C++# (and never try to state that it is C++), there would
be no problem.

Or maybe the C++ standard committee stated that the C++/CLI is "not fierce"
because it's unlikely that anybody want to use it?


--
// _ ___ 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"