C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [SG10] Jacksonville additions: non-controversial?

From: Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden]>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 22:58:01 +0100
On 03/11/2016 07:59 PM, Nelson, Clark wrote:
> Several of my proposals have attracted no comments so far:
> __cpp_hex_float NEW
> __cpp_range_based_for BUMP

Fine with me.

> __cpp_aggregate_bases NEW

Aggregating bases? Anyway, absent a better suggestion, fine with me.

> searcher design mistake no macro

Fine with me.

> I also want to specifically call attention to the hardware interference
> (cache-line) size proposal. The paper proposed:
> __cpp_lib_thread_hardware_interference_size
> But "thread" is not in the name proposed for the library, so it
> shouldn't be in the name of the macro either. (Apparently that was left
> over from the original proposal, in which this was provided by the
> thread class.) I think shortening that name is the obviously correct
> thing to do.


> Finally, I proposed making the new headers from the parallelism TS
> consistent with those from the fundamentals TS by adding macros (with
> specific values) defined within those headers:
> __cpp_lib_exception_list
> __cpp_lib_execution_policy

Fine with me. (Why do we need these, again? If there is a new
header, isn't the __has_header<> thing enough?)


Received on 2016-03-11 22:58:09