Subject: Re: [SG10] Jacksonville additions
From: John Spicer (jhs_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-10 09:30:34
> On Mar 10, 2016, at 9:38 AM, Jason Merrill <jason_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 03/10/2016 08:34 AM, Jens Maurer wrote:
>> On 03/10/2016 01:41 PM, John Spicer wrote:
>>> Iâm wondering whether some of these should be updated values of existing macros.
>>> For example, capture of this and constexpr lambdas *could* be an update of __cpp_lambdas.
>> Agreed, sounds more reasonable to me.
> That means that you can't test for support of one without the other, but
> I guess that's OK.
The other way to go would be to have constexpr lambdas bump the value of __cpp_constexpr, or perhaps also bump both the lambda and constexpr values.
> Features mailing list
SG10 list run by firstname.lastname@example.org