> My understanding falls short in trying to understand the
> difference in
> (possible) recommendation of __has_cpp_attribute and the non-
> recommendation
> of __has_feature, where recommending it would seem to be
> consistent. If it's
> too much, just let me know and I'll stop trying to understand.

OK, I didn't realize until now that your concern was about the apparent
inconsistency between not recommending __has_feature and recommending
__has_[cpp_]attribute.

Would it be fair to restate your questions as, why are we recommending
something like __has_attribute when we didn't recommend __has_feature?

(Actually, whether that's the exact sense of your question or not, I think
that's a very, very important question.)

Clark