On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:26 AM, Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 02/03/2015 01:35 AM, Nelson, Clark wrote:
> > Here is an updated document. I have added __cpp_noexcept as Ed proposed,
> and
> > __cpp_forward_decl_enum, as he appears to have proposed. Ed didn't seem
> to
> > make any other positive proposals, but I received an independent
> suggestion
> > about explicit conversion operators, so I have added it as well.
>
> We did quite a bit of surgery to enumerations in C++11,
> e.g. we can now have explicit base types and scoping etc.
>
> I'm wondering why we're highlighting the "forward declaration"
> part, as opposed to just "__cpp_extended_enum" or simply
> "__cpp_enum", with suitably-changing values?


I'm in two minds about this: by putting all the changes under the same
name, we present a problem to implementations who implement only part of
the new rules: they can't bump the version of their __cpp_enum macro until
they implement the whole lot. But I do like avoiding the proliferation of
macros tracking tiny changes, so if we don't anticipate any implementations
in that state, then I'd prefer the more general macro name.