On Wed, 7 Nov 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote: > Jason Merrill wrote: > > > One solution to this issue would be to simply disallow attributes on > > structs after the definition. Failing that, we need to define how they > > interact with the type system. Opinions? > > We had a discussion about this a while back: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-10/msg00318.html > > Roughly speaking, it seemed like my proposal was approximately > acceptable to those who commented -- except that it seemed that it > actually allowed a bit more than we need to do so. In particular, my > reading of that thread is that people seemd to agree we could simply > disallow attributes after the definition, which is fine by me.
There's an additional issue to deal with now: proposals to include some form of attributes in C++0x and C1x and any semantics those may define. None of the proposals I've seen seem to do much about addressing the type system issues. I critiqued incompatibilities in one proposal in WG14 N1259. WG21 N2466 (a document arising from the WG14 Kona meeting that I presume will appear in the WG14 post-Kona mailing as well as the WG21 one) gives some WG14 views from Kona but doesn't seem to address type system issues. -- Joseph S. Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
