<HTML>
<HEAD>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>
    CWG Issue 1133</TITLE>
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<STYLE TYPE="text/css">
  INS { text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold; background-color:#A0FFA0 }
  .INS { text-decoration:none; background-color:#D0FFD0 }
  DEL { text-decoration:line-through; background-color:#FFA0A0 }
  .DEL { text-decoration:line-through; background-color: #FFD0D0 }
  @media (prefers-color-scheme: dark) {
    HTML { background-color:#202020; color:#f0f0f0; }
    A { color:#5bc0ff; }
    A:visited { color:#c6a8ff; }
    A:hover, a:focus { color:#afd7ff; }
    INS { background-color:#033a16; color:#aff5b4; }
    .INS { background-color: #033a16; }
    DEL { background-color:#67060c; color:#ffdcd7; }
    .DEL { background-color:#67060c; }
  }
  SPAN.cmnt { font-family:Times; font-style:italic }
</STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><EM>This is an unofficial snapshot of the ISO/IEC JTC1 SC22 WG21
  Core Issues List revision 118b.
  See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/ for the official
  list.</EM></P>
<P>2025-09-28</P>
<HR>
<A NAME="1133"></A><H4>1133.
  
Keywords vs attributes for control of hiding and overriding
</H4>
<B>Section: </B>_N3225_.7.6.5&#160; [<A href="https://wg21.link/dcl.attr.override">dcl.attr.override</A>]
 &#160;&#160;&#160;

 <B>Status: </B>C++11
 &#160;&#160;&#160;

 <B>Submitter: </B>US
 &#160;&#160;&#160;

 <B>Date: </B>2010-08-02<BR><BR>


<P>[Voted into the WP at the November, 2010 meeting in paper N3206.]</P>

<A href="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2011/n3296.html#US44">N3092 comment
  US&#160;44<BR></A>

<P>The facility for checking hiding and overriding of base class members
should not use the attribute syntax but should use keywords instead.
Concerns about breaking code by changing current identifiers into
keywords can be addressed by using contextual keywords, i.e., by putting
the keywords into syntactic locations where identifiers cannot appear
and thus continuing to allow their use as ordinary identifiers in other
contexts.</P>

<P><B>Notes from the August, 2010 meeting:</B></P>

<P>CWG expressed a preference for non-contextual keywords for these
features.</P>

<BR><BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>
