On Mon, Feb 9, 2026 at 5:09 PM Alejandro Colomar via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Hi Frederick,
>
> On 2026-02-09T13:12:57+0000, Frederick Virchanza Gotham via Std-Proposals wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 8, 2026 at 6:34 PM Arthur O'Dwyer wrote:
> > >
> > > No, but commendable secondary goals. We see way too many proposals
> > > that do not consider implementability or teachability concerns, and many
> > > of them are adopted (either permanently or temporarily).
> >
> >
> > And in the case of NRVO, I think the lack of progress is because
> > Anton's paper is just too complicated to implement in compilers, and
> > also too much bother to write into the Standard.
> >
> >
> > > Now, sure, "ignorable attributes" is the law of the land, on paper,
> > > for now; but I don't think it's completely unreasonable for a std-proposals
> > > thread to imagine the future world where the law of the land has changed,
> > > not just for existing standard attributes like [[no_unique_address]] which are
> > > not ignorable, or existing vendor-specific attributes like [[gnu::section("foo")]],
> > > but for all attributes equally.
> >
> >
> > For unignorable attributes, maybe have [[[attrib]]] or [[<attrib>]]
> > or [[(attrib)]]
>
> I'm working on non-ignorable attributes in ISO C2y. There seems to be
> some consensus being built (but not yet there) that non-ignorable
> attributes should be scoped ones (similar to vendor ones), just with
> a standard prefix. I think the best prefix would have to be either
> [[::attr]] or [[std::attr]].

Do we really need 6-9 keystrokes just for a keyword? What you're
talking about aren't attributes anymore; they're just namespaced
keywords (and thus cannot conflict with existing code).

Please find better syntax for new keywords.