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

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)