Subject: Re: [SG10] Updates to SD-6
From: Ed Smith-Rowland (3dw4rd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-30 19:16:32
On 12/30/2014 12:54 PM, Nelson, Clark wrote:
>> For N3928 Extending static_assert why not just bump up the date on __cpp_static_assert?
> Yeah, that's definitely worth considering. The change is a pretty minor
> tweak. (The recommendations I included for this were the ones provided
> in N3928 -- thanks, Walter.)
>> Related to this I'm assuming an implementation is allowed to bump up the date on a macro if they implement updates over several iterations of a feature.
>> Users could be encouraged to check __cpp_feature >= <some_min_date> for example.
> You seem to be talking here about implementation dates. That's allowed, of
> course -- SD-6 contains only recommendations, after all -- but it would
> not actually constitute following the recommendations. It certainly
> wouldn't help with portability between implementations, which is our
> primary goal.
>> We could bump the date on __cpp_unicode_literals for - Scartch that - that's for strings.
>> Just __cpp_utf8_char_literals I think.
> Noted, thanks.
>> N4295 - Folding expressions: __cpp_parameter_pack_sorcery, __cpp_fold_expressions is probably better.
> Interesting. Richard, for my curiosity, can you explain why the title of
> the document doesn't match the terminology used in the document?
>> N4266 - Attributes for namespaces and enumerators. They really are sort of two different things:
>> __cpp_namespace_attributes 201411
>> __cpp_enumerator_attributes 201411
> Hmm. It could be argued that each attribute that can appertain to a
> namespace or enumerator is a distinct thing. Today there is only one such
> attribute: deprecated. We could even consider bumping the value of
I guess i was thinking this paper introduces 3 things:
1. namespace attributes
2. enumerator attributes
3. application of attribute deprecated allowed for the former attribute
The first two are 'new' (though implementations have shipped with these).
I figure the syntax and semantics of attribute deprecated haven't
changed - just the use cases.
>> Safe conversions in unique_ptr<T> -
> Did you mean to say something about this?
>> A proposal to add invoke function template - __cpp_lib_invoke 201411.
> I think we want to be very careful about introducing a macro name that
> short. It wouldn't be consistent with our other macros, but maybe we should
> consider something like __cpp_lib_functional_invoke.
>> N4280 - Non-member size() and more: __cpp_lib_nonmember_container_access 201411.
> OK. I have another question about this one. It mentions that the new
> declarations are available by including any of an even dozen headers. Does
> that mean that our recommendations should specify this macro as being
> defined by all of those headers?
On second reading I'm not actually sure whether these things go into
std:: or std::experimental::...
So should they be pulled into <vector> or <experimental/vector>?
> Features mailing list
SG10 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com