Subject: Re: [SG10] SD-6 macro name stability.
From: Nelson, Clark (clark.nelson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-06-02 11:59:29
> I should have asked this earlier but I was wondering based on the
> recent iteration how stable the macro names are?
> I know the __cpp_lib_has_* are questionable. But I'd like to know
> the names on the currently posted SD-6 are stable.
It's important to understand that there's a difference between SD-6, which
is the "official" recommendation from SG10, and drafts that I post here on
the reflector, or even N4030. The reason that SD-6 still describes the
reality only as of the first CD of C++14 is that SG10 has not yet
"officially" decided on recommendations for changes made after the Bristol
(The reason I keep putting quotes around the word "official" is that
technically we're making up our own rules and processes as we go along.
We're trying to do the right thing to balance deliberation against
But SG10 certainly understands the importance of stability. I think it's
pretty safe to bet that, once a macro name actually reaches SD-6, it will
remain stable -- with the possible exception of __cpp_lib_shared_mutex.
> I'm going to wait until after the next meeting before I patch for
> __has_cpp_attribute and the above macros.
That's a good idea.
SG10 list run by firstname.lastname@example.org