On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:24 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> After doing a bit more research and discussion off-list, I think >> "generalized attribute" is acceptable. So patch LGTM as-is. > > > Really? I wouldn't expect someone seeing this diagnostic to understand that > "generalized attribute" means C++11 attributes (it's a really weird term, > since they're not a generalization of anything). This isn't an official name > for them, and doesn't distinguish them from the other attribute syntaxes we > support. Given that this is a diagnostic about compatibility with C++98, > "C++11 attributes" seems like the clearest way of expressing this.
As Alp had pointed out, we document the name as "generalized attribute" in our feature support documentation, and it's the original name of the feature. Also, a quick google search of "generalized attribute" yielded more results than "C++11 attribute" did (not saying this was particularly scientific). So that's why I gave the LGTM on the term. That being said, my original preference was for C++11 attribute instead, and as you point out, this is a C++98 compat diagnostic, so using "C++11" would be clear. Perhaps I should have stuck with my gut instead. ;-) ~Aaron _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
