C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [SG10] Teleconference: June 19

From: Benjamin De Kosnik <bkoz_at_[hidden]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:19:49 -0700
> Here's an updated document. I have added a short preface describing
> to WG21 how we're trying to accomplish our goals, with some rationale
> for our approach. This revision also reflects more complete feedback
> from authors about names appropriate to their features.

Thanks Clark.

> In the C++14 table, we'll need to select among the presented names.
> In particular, we need to figure out what to do about constexpr.

I've been dodging a paper on constexpr for this group, or a survey of
library type issues. Here's my WIP:

The more I look at constexpr, and the draft recommendations, the more I
think that we should be aiming for something simple for chicago.

Therefore, I'm in favor of just


and setting different values to determine what level of language
support is being specified.

IMHO, if this group starts coming up with 4 macros to detail what
version of constexpr is in play, it's going to be too confusing to use
in practice. What do these macros mean again? Etc.

> There's also the question of whether language-feature macros should
> be predefined, or defined by a new header.

I would have said this was one of the three things that we have a
definite consensus on.


I thought there was a consensus for all language features as
predefined. I don't really see any other option, frankly.

> The C++11 and conditionally-supported construct tables are new and
> need detailed consideration.

Even C++98.

If I have feature testing for constexpr and lambda before there's
actually a vendor-agreed-on way to check for exceptions, a
decade-long plus portability issue, a small part of me is going to die


Received on 2013-06-19 05:04:03