On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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, Also, mostly as a meta-point, I'd like to not expect our feature support documentation to be read by very many users of Clang, relatively speaking.
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
