Subject: Re: [SG10] Jacksonville additions
From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-11 10:03:07
On 03/11/2016 12:58 AM, Nelson, Clark wrote:
> Does anyone feel that the availability of constexpr lambda would be
> better indicated through __cpp_lambdas than through __cpp_constexpr?
> I think it would be perfectly reasonable to bump __cpp_constexpr again
> for lambdas.
Fine with me.
> But I'm still leaning towards having a separate macro for
> capturing *this, at least in part for consistency with
SG10 list run by firstname.lastname@example.org