Skip to content

CWG Poll 18: P1908R1 Reserving attribute namespaces for future use #3741

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 26, 2020
Merged

CWG Poll 18: P1908R1 Reserving attribute namespaces for future use #3741

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
8 changes: 8 additions & 0 deletions source/declarations.tex
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -8540,6 +8540,14 @@
behavior is \impldef{behavior of non-standard attributes}.
Any \grammarterm{attribute-token} that is not recognized by the implementation
is ignored.
An \grammarterm{attribute-token} is reserved for future standardization if
\begin{itemize}
\item it is not an \grammarterm{attribute-scoped-token} and
not specified in this document, or
\item it is an \grammarterm{attribute-scoped-token} and
its \grammarterm{attribute-namespace} is
either \tcode{std} or \tcode{std} followed by one or more digits.
\end{itemize}
Comment on lines +8543 to +8550
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

#3127 suggests that a blank line should precede and follow each of these \items (note that I've interpreted that to include the \begin{itemize}/\end{itemize} as part of the first/last \item)

\begin{note}
Each implementation should choose a distinctive name for the
\grammarterm{attribute-namespace} in an \grammarterm{attribute-scoped-token}.
Expand Down