On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Richard Smith <rich...@metafoo.co.uk>wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Joe Groff <arc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Alexander Kornienko <ale...@google.com> >> wrote: >> > This patch adds diagnostic of unintentional control flow fall-through >> > between switch labels. It also provides a way to specifically mark a >> switch >> > label with a c++ 11 attribute [[fallthrough]] to specify an intentional >> > fall-through. This also serves as an example of C++ 11 statement >> attributes, >> > and builds upon my recent patch, which introduces support for this >> language >> > feature. >> >> For future-proofing's sake, does the standard provide any guidance for >> naming nonstandardized attributes? Should the attribute be named >> something like 'clang::fallthrough' instead of just 'fallthrough', in >> case a future standard or other implementations provide for a similar >> attribute with different behavior? > > > Yes, I think so. The attribute namespace mechanism was designed to allow > such vendor extensions without creating problems for future > standardization. > I would find this extremely unfortunate. The fallthrough check doesn't seem likely at all to be a vendor-specific extension. I can't imagine any possible standardized meaning for the attribute other than the use being proposed here. Forcing users to type 'clang::' in each place seems to reduce the clarity and readability of the construct with no real benefit. Is this really necessary? Can we not add a top-level attribute when it makes sense?
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@cs.uiuc.edu http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
