On 06/02/2014 11:10 PM, Nelson, Clark wrote:
>> 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?

Yes, that's a fair restatement of the thoughts motivating my feedback.

Thanks,

Steve.