C++ Logo

SG10

Advanced search

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.)

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


SG10 list run by sg10-owner@lists.isocpp.org