C++ Logo

SG10

Advanced search

Subject: Re: [SG10] Draft: ready for the mid-term mailing?
From: Nelson, Clark (clark.nelson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-06-26 14:13:52


OK, here's what I have as far as consensus concerning defining
header-specific macros (somewhere).

Four people (John, Gaby, Walter and Chandler) have expressed definite
opposition; my impression is that at least three of those opinions are
strong. Richard has expressed at least some concerns; I interpret this as
weak opposition.

I am strongly in favor. Tom has expressed nothing but support; I'm not
sure how strong his opinion is, but I guess it doesn't matter.

So I interpret the consensus as being in opposition to header-specific
macros.

Here is a new draft. I have added a new section at the bottom, for rationale
and explanation, with links from the table. I have filled in the rationale
for the cases that need it most urgently, including all the papers for which
we aren't recommending any macro. By the time we get to the pre-Chicago
mailing, I think there should a rationale entry for every macro, ideally
with a plausible example of code that might be useful in the real world.

I also resurrected the C++11 table, because it seemed the simplest way to
explain what we're doing with constexpr, and why. But I beefed up the
disclaimer on that table.

Please note that I am unable to provide a rational explanation for SG10's
decision not to recommend macros specific to the new headers. I'm going to
need someone else to provide a sentence or two -- pretty quickly.

Clark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: features-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:features-bounces_at_open-
> std.org] On Behalf Of Nelson, Clark
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 9:49 AM
> To: John Spicer
> Cc: features_at_[hidden] (features_at_[hidden])
> Subject: Re: [SG10] Draft: ready for the mid-term mailing?
>
> > I don't like the idea of adding macros for these headers to
> > existing files.
>
> That seems to be the point on which we need to measure consensus
> on the reflector.
>
> To everyone: If you have an opinion on this point, please express
> it.
>
> --
> Clark Nelson Vice chair, PL22.16 (ANSI C++ standard
> committee)
> Intel Corporation Chair, SG10 (C++ SG for feature-testing)
> clark.nelson_at_[hidden] Chair, CPLEX (C SG for parallel language
> extensions)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Features mailing list
> Features_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features




SG10 list run by sg10-owner@lists.isocpp.org