C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [SG10] Jacksonville additions

From: Nelson, Clark <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:11:22 +0000
> >>> 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?


Received on 2016-03-10 17:11:59