C++ Logo


Advanced search

Subject: Re: [SG10] Some small precedence for feature testing in C++
From: Nelson, Clark (clark.nelson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-07-31 17:53:45

> We have two similar feature-test macros already in the standard (16.8/2):
> I think the inconsistency between our recommendations and these is
> unfortunate. Should we consider using names of that style instead of our
> existing __cpp_* names? The above names are guaranteed to be defined to 1 if
> the feature is available, so this wouldn't be an exact match for our
> recommendations.

There's another thing about our recommendations that doesn't match those:
ours aren't technically standard; they're just (hopefully) going to be

But maybe that's too finicky a distinction. For all we know, maybe someday
consensus will support putting these conventions into the standard. We
certainly aren't going to want to rename them at that point; maybe we should
go with names that don't emphasize the difference.

On the other hand, there's also __cplusplus -- lower case, no "std", no
final underscores. We're following that example. :-)

There's no such thing as perfect consistency.


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