wt., 10 lut 2026 o 11:57 Ville Voutilainen
<ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> napisał(a):
>
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2026 at 12:40, Marcin Jaczewski
> <marcinjaczewski86_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > > Or perhaps use the prefix '='. Like we.. ..already do.
> >
> > I recall that something like this was mentioned, but is it already
> > available, what paper add this?
> > And if yes then this whole discussion (about attributes) is a bit moot
> > as it solves all problems.
>
> That would be https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2025/p3394r4.html
>
> We don't seem to have (p)reserved any annotation names for use by
> standard facilities.

Aaa right, this is for reflection, this is why I do not connect dots,
but this could conflict with user defined values. And best would be
that `[[foo]]` and `[[=foo]]` means the same but one is not ignorable.
But technically we could define constexpr symbols that could be
recognized by a compiler like `[[foo]]` equal to `[[=std::foo]]`. This
could be used too to query normal std attributes if the compiler
recognized them.