Subject: Re: [SG10] __has_[cpp_]attribute
From: Nelson, Clark (clark.nelson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-06-09 16:36:51
> > Would it be fair to restate your questions as, why are we
> > something like __has_attribute when we didn't recommend
I was actually hoping someone would provide an answer to that question.
I put __has_cpp_attribute into the document based on my sense of the March
17 meeting, which I recorded as "some sentiment" in favor. But before this
is discussed in EWG next week, I'd like to have a clearer idea of the
consensus within SG10. So please reply with your position.
I myself am opposed -- weakly -- to the __has_attribute syntax, or some
variation thereof, for all the reasons we didn't go with __has_feature in
the first place, as I explained a couple of weeks ago.
Clark Nelson Vice chair, PL22.16 (ANSI C++ standard committee)
Intel Corporation Chair, SG10 (C++ SG for feature-testing)
clark.nelson_at_[hidden] Chair, CPLEX (C SG for parallel language extensions)
SG10 list run by firstname.lastname@example.org