Subject: Re: [SG10] __cpp_lib_constexpr_functions
From: Daniel Krügler (daniel.kruegler_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-08-27 13:20:44
2013/8/27 John Spicer <jhs_at_[hidden]>:
> On Aug 27, 2013, at 1:19 PM, "Nelson, Clark" <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> | 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
>>> 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?
> I think we should not recommend a macro for these functions. We can always revisit this later, but if we have concerns, I think it is better to leave it out.
I would also agree to that choice and I tend to prefer it.
SG10 list run by firstname.lastname@example.org