Subject: Re: [SG10] Jacksonville additions
From: Nelson, Clark (clark.nelson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-10 10:11:22
> >>> 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.
Wow. To me, that seems to be getting pretty muddy/complex.
I think I'd prefer to provide only one test for both of those things,
even though I'm concerned about that direction.
I'm guessing capturing *this is not too difficult to implement,
but I haven't thought about it much.
I also haven't thought a lot about constexpr lambdas. I'm guessing
it wouldn't be too difficult to implement -- for someone who has
already implemented full support for constexpr a la C++2014.
Is there something I'm missing?
SG10 list run by email@example.com