Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 22:02:10 -0600
> 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.)
You’re welcome, but I wish I had thought of Ed’s 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].
<snip>
Best for 2015,
— WEB
>
>> 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.)
You’re welcome, but I wish I had thought of Ed’s 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].
<snip>
Best for 2015,
— WEB
Received on 2014-12-31 05:02:12