Subject: Re: [SG10] __cpp_lib_constexpr_functions
From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-08-27 11:58:30
"Nelson, Clark" <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]> writes:
| > > Does anybody want to defend the status quo?
| > Not me. Do we need separate __cpp_lib_constexpr_chrono (etc.)
| > macros, then?
| My impression is that either we need to go back to that or we need to pick a
| name that we're more confident we won't want to use for some other purpose
| in the future. Or, as Matt suggests, maybe we don't even need a macro for
| this purpose. But going back to header-specific names seems safest to me.
| Apparently we changed to what we have now after Bristol. Here is the only
| relevant comment on the Bristol wiki:
| Benjamin: Maybe only have one macro __cpp_lib_constexpr, not individual
| macros for each chapter. Do not go sub-modular right now.
I made the same remarks when you asked for feedback.
SG10 list run by email@example.com