C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [SG10] Jacksonville additions

From: Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 17:03:07 +0100
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
> __cpp_init_capture.



Received on 2016-03-11 17:08:30