Subject: Re: [SG10] Generalized/relaxed const. expr.
From: Nelson, Clark (clark.nelson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-06-04 10:33:25
> > 1) For N2235, use __cpp_constexpr (emphasizing the new keyword)
> > For N3652, use __cpp_constexpr_statements (emphasizing that this is an
> > extension of __cpp_constexpr, and that the primary change is that it
> > almost any statements in constexpr functions)
I like this idea, but I'm somewhat concerned about the ambiguity of "constexpr statements", especially since "constexpr" can't be applied to a statement.
I'm tempted to suggest __cpp_constexpr_iteration. Iteration seems to have been one of the strongest motivations for the change.
If we don't do it that way, I guess my next preference would be __cpp_constexpr_2014, or some variation thereof, and use just __cpp_constexpr for the C++11 feature.
I note that no one has (yet) specifically argued that the difference between C++11 and C++14 in this area is subtle or minor -- that being the criterion I would prefer for using a different macro value, instead of a different name.
SG10 list run by email@example.com