On 01/08/2015 08:29 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Nelson, Clark <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]
> <mailto:clark.nelson_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>
>
> > > > N4051 Allow typename in a template template parameter
> > > > __cpp_typename_in_template_template_parm 201411
> > > > This may be too little to mess with.
>
> > > This is a really good question. The only way I could see this
> being used
> > > would be like so:
> > > #if __cpp_typename_in_template_template_parm
> > > #define TTP typename
> > > #else
> > > #define TTP class
> > > #endif
>
> > > with template template parameters declared like so:
> > > template<template<...> TTP X> ...
>
> > > Obviously, the interesting questions are, what sort of
> spelling might
> > > actually be used for the name of what I have called "TTP", and
> would anyone
> > > actually bother to write code like this?
>
> > It really depends what we think feature test macros are for. Another
> > possible use is this:
>
> > #if !__cpp_typename_in_template_template_parm
> > #error You need a compiler supporting C++17 to build this code.
> > #endif
>
> > So, do we only care about feature-test macros that allow a
> program to use
> > the feature if present and reasonably fall back if not, or do we
> also care
> > about cases where the only reasonable response to a missing
> feature is to
> > cause an error (or fail a configure check or similar)? The
> latter case
> > covers this feature, trigraph removal, digit separators, and
> probably some
> > others, which should presumably be treated uniformly.
>
> For my money, if the only plausible use of a feature-test macro
> would be to
> control a #error directive, that's not enough justification to
> create the
> macro. Here's how SD-6 already says it:
>
> (The absence of a tested feature may result in a program with
> decreased
> functionality, or the relevant functionality may be provided in a
> different
> way. A program that strictly depends on support for a feature can
> just try
> to use the feature unconditionally; presumably, on an
> implementation lacking
> necessary support, translation will fail.)
>
> It's possible that we have already invented some macros that I
> wouldn't
> really consider to be adequately justified. Nobody's perfect. :-(
> That's part of the reason we don't try to put our recommendations
> in the
> standard itself.
>
>
> OK, I think this is an entirely reasonable position. On that basis, I
> think we do not want a macro for N4051. (I think we also don't want a
> __cpp_digit_separators macro; how do we feel about removing it from
> our recommendations?)
I think we all agree that there's no sane use for a macro for template
template typename.
On the other hand I can maybe see surrounding blocks of constants with
the digit separator macro.
Then dropping the unseparated block as the last platform implements
digit seps.
>
> > > > N4268 - Allow constant evaluation for all non-type template
> arguments
> > > > __cpp_const_eval_of_non_type_template_args
> >
> > > I have tweaked the spelling of this slightly:
> > > __cpp_const_eval_all_nontype_template_args
>
>
> > That seems quite verbose. How about:
>
> > __cpp_nontype_template_arg_eval
>
> > Even then, I worry that the "eval" is missing the point. The
> change removes
> > a syntactic restriction as much as it introduces different
> semantics. I
> > wonder if simply
>
> > __cpp_nontype_template_args == 201411
>
> > would be acceptable; I think that's my preferred spelling for this.
>
> OK, thanks.
>
> Clark
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Features mailing list
> Features_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features