Subject: Re: [SG10] Shared locking
From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-03-17 17:06:15
On 03/17/2014 10:46 PM, Nelson, Clark wrote:
> The __has_include test definitely needs to be there. I left in the 201304
> test mainly just for stability reasons, but I moved it from the <mutex>
> header to the <shared_mutex> header. I added the 201402 test to
> <shared_mutex>; that's exactly right. But it's not so clear to me what macro
> name should be used for that test.
> So I reached that state more or less by accident, but I have to say that
> it's actually kind of attractive to me. The 201304 test is pretty much
> superfluous, but the more seriously we take stability, the stronger the
> argument for leaving it in.
In general, I like the outcome.
Since we already broke the __cpp_lib_shared_mutex 201304 test by
moving it to a different header, we might as well remove it altogether:
Existing code will #include <mutex> and expect the 201304 test to
work. Such code we just broke. So, let's remove the 201304 test
and rely entirely on __has_include(<share_mutex>).
(I have no strong objections against leaving it in, despite serving
SG10 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com