Subject: Re: [SG10] Generalized/relaxed const. expr.
From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-06-04 15:30:28
On 06/04/2013 05:33 PM, Nelson, Clark wrote:
> 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.
>From an engineering tidiness point-of-view, I do have a preference
to change macro values instead of having more macro name pollution.
Remember we'll have >100 macro names within a decade or so, all
addressing one or the other corner of the language.
#if __cpp_constexpr > 201300
... // stellar constexpr
... // use ugly recursion to simulate iteration
... // just give up
seems reasonable, and compares well against
Whatever macro name we choose, it's likely that you need an additional
comment in your source code to explain what the precise sub-feature
is you're depending on, so simply using __cpp_constexpr seems to give
enough of a clue for my taste. (I don't buy the "minor feature"
argument here, but that's just my weak personal opinion.)
SG10 list run by firstname.lastname@example.org