AspectG++ ?

[Robert Dewar]

On 2/18/2011 4:59 PM, David Lanzendörfer wrote:
>> And non-standard extensions are generally not acceptable.
> Well, I think as soon as people begin to use it, even gcc itself might become
> more and more aspect orientated (at the c-parts).
> It's one of the aspects of AOP that sourcecode will be stripped down enormous,
> because generalization is much eaysier.
> But anyway, seems as there is really no ISO standard yet for AOP.
> Seems as there first have to be made some definitions, before I can hope
> to use AOP features in my one-and-only compiler... :-(
> Ok, well, in this case, let me ask a very naive question:
> Who do I need to mail to, in order to motivate the definition of an ISO
> standard for AOP in C/C++? ^.^"

You can contact a commercial company that deals with gcc, and be 
prepared to pay the cost (which I am sure would be substantial).
Or you can do it yourself.
>
> best regards
> 	David