On 08/24/2013 12:12 AM, Nelson, Clark wrote:
> Finally, we have gotten some concrete, specific feedback from someone who
> wasn't involved in SG10; specifically, Matt Austern:
>
>> Mostly looks fine to me. The one name here that I'm slightly concerned about
>> is __cpp_lib_constexpr_functions, which is supposed to be defined for
>> implementations that have additional constexpr support in <chrono>,
>> <utility>, and containers. This is an awfully general name for something so
>> specific; it seems to me there's a high risk of additional constexpr
>> functions added in the future, where one would want to use that same name.
>> Maybe the right fix is to remove that macro rather than try to find a better
>> name, since it's rather a grab bag anyway. (Is there any reason to believe
>> that those three sets of changes will be made simultaneously?)
>
> I know that I once believed it to pretty important that the changes might be
> applied to different headers at different times, and I don't specifically
> remember being convinced otherwise. So I guess I missed this implication of
> the change.
>
> Does anybody want to defend the status quo?

Not me. Do we need separate __cpp_lib_constexpr_chrono (etc.)
macros, then?

Jens