C++0x [[annotations]]

Discussion in 'C++' started by Sektor van Skijlen, Mar 5, 2008.

  1. 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"
     
    Sektor van Skijlen, Mar 5, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Sektor van Skijlen

    Pete Becker Guest

    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)
     
    Pete Becker, Mar 6, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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, Mar 6, 2008
    #3
  4. * 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?
     
    Alf P. Steinbach, Mar 6, 2008
    #4
  5. Sektor van Skijlen

    Pete Becker Guest

    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)
     
    Pete Becker, Mar 6, 2008
    #5
  6. 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, Mar 8, 2008
    #6
  7. Sektor van Skijlen

    Bo Persson Guest

    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
     
    Bo Persson, Mar 8, 2008
    #7
  8. 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"
     
    Sektor van Skijlen, Mar 8, 2008
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Efy.
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    558
    Nicole Calinoiu
    Sep 22, 2003
  2. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    560
    Chris Uppal
    Jan 25, 2005
  3. Ingo R. Homann
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    572
    Ingo R. Homann
    Jul 26, 2005
  4. Vidar S. Ramdal

    Annotations and Retention

    Vidar S. Ramdal, Aug 18, 2005, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    668
    Vidar S. Ramdal
    Aug 19, 2005
  5. Stefan Ram

    Jalopy does not format annotations

    Stefan Ram, Sep 26, 2005, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    618
    Roedy Green
    Sep 26, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page