Subject: Re: [SG10] First conceivably-complete draft recommendation
From: Nelson, Clark (clark.nelson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-06-10 12:38:31
> Regarding the conditionally-supported constructs, for 7.5p2 the document
> says "Probably no single macro would make sense for this.". I agree
> with this, but I wonder if the same reasoning applies to linkage
> specifications in 14p4? In both cases, it would only let you know that
> some unspecified linkage other than C and C++.
> We could probably just not provide a macro, but if we wanted to give
> guidance perhaps something like __cond_has_XYZ_linkage (where XYZ would
> be kind of linkage supported (or the closest version usable in a macro
> A similar issue exists for 7.6.1p3 for attribute namespaces. Knowing
> that the implementation supports some unspecified set of attribute
> namespaces does not seem very useful.
I added the conditionally-supported features to the document because that was requested at the meeting. But I have to say that I really think macros for those require considerably more study and thought. The last thing I want is for the recommendations concerning the C++14 features to be delayed because recommendations for conditionally-supported features (which are not urgent) aren't yet ready.
SG10 list run by email@example.com