C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [SG10] Teleconference: June 19

From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_[hidden]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:55:29 -0500
Benjamin De Kosnik <bkoz_at_[hidden]> writes:


| > 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:
| http://sunglint.wordpress.com/2013/06/16/compile-feature-testing/
| 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
| __cplusplus_constexpr
| 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.

I strongly with what Benjamin said. This suggestion appears to me to
be a far superior solutions to alternatives I've seen so far.
Furthermore, this should not be done only for constexpr. The approach
should be used as a template for all the other macros.

-- Gaby

Received on 2013-06-22 00:03:55