Subject: Re: [SG10] __cpp_lib_constexpr_functions
From: Gabriel Dos Reis (gdr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-08-27 12:37:05
"Nelson, Clark" <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]> writes:
| > | So how do you think we should respond to Matt's feedback?
| > Agree with Matt that in less than 10 years most of these macros
| > will
| > pointless. I think implementations are progressing faster that,
| > what we
| > had at comparable stage for C++98.
| What I would like to know is what you think we should do this week. Should
| we not recommend any macro for these constexpr functions?
My instance on having few macros isn't just specific to constexpr.
For 'constexpr' in particular, I do believe it is still too early. LWG
doesn't even know what it wants. Having a new macro everytime that LWG
changes its mind sound overkill. If the desire is to have a macro
anyway, then I will repeat the suggestion I made previously: Have just one
macro for constexpr, call it something, and have its value updated for
new released of the committee draft.
SG10 list run by email@example.com