Subject: Re: [SG10] Updates to SD-6
From: W Brown (webrown.cpp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-30 22:02:10
> On Dec 30, 2014, at 11:54 AM, Nelson, Clark <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]> 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.)
Youre welcome, but I wish I had thought of Eds suggestion. Unless anyone objects, I recommend we adopt it, as (1) I like it better than any of mine, and (2) doing so seems entirely consistent with our document:
"In a case where a feature is subsequently changed in a significant way, but arguably remains the same feature, the value of the macro is changed to indicate the revision level of the specification of the feature [2.3 p5].
Best for 2015,
SG10 list run by firstname.lastname@example.org