2013/8/27 Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr_at_[hidden]>:
> "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.

I agree with Gaby.

- Daniel