René's URL Explorer Experiment

{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"DiscussionForumPosting","headline":"How should we annotate version-specific optional syntax element?","articleBody":"The syntax form for many features includes optional components that are only valid in newer language/library versions, but these are not explicitly marked. For example, in the syntax of function definition the syntax element `attr` is only valid since C++11, and `contract-specs` is introduced in C++26.\n\n\u003cimg width=\"564\" height=\"113\" alt=\"Image\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/0270c762-de23-4e49-afa8-3f236fb26a28\" /\u003e\n\nIn cppdoc, readers can select a specific C++ revision. The intuitive expectation is that features not available in the selected revision should be hidden. To achieve this during migration of docs for function, I have “divided” the syntax description into multiple revision-specific blocks.\n\n\u003cimg width=\"734\" height=\"815\" alt=\"Image\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/4f233060-f8a9-4479-ac75-ded3764a1cdd\" /\u003e\n\nHowever, this approach becomes cumbersome and visually complex, especially for intricate syntax, as shown in the examples below.\n\n\u003cimg width=\"718\" height=\"557\" alt=\"Image\" src=\"https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/728cde6c-86f8-4ff2-b43e-d209599a7824\" /\u003e\n\nHow should we deal with that?\n","author":{"url":"https://github.com/Sudrut","@type":"Person","name":"Sudrut"},"datePublished":"2025-12-18T15:19:06.000Z","interactionStatistic":{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":"https://schema.org/CommentAction","userInteractionCount":1},"url":"https://github.com/85/cppdoc/issues/85"}