Subject: Re: [SG10] Another update
From: Richard Smith (richard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-02-03 16:35:43
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,
> > __cpp_forward_decl_enum, as he appears to have proposed. Ed didn't seem
> > make any other positive proposals, but I received an independent
> > 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.
SG10 list run by email@example.com