On 3/13/2016 10:16 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Daniel Krügler
> <daniel.kruegler_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 2016-03-11 20:27 GMT+01:00 Agustín Bergé <agustinberge_at_[hidden]>:
>>> On 3/11/2016 4:14 PM, Nelson, Clark wrote:
>>>> Agustin raised the question of whether there should be a macro to
>>>> indicate the presence of the fix for LWG2296. I made a couple of
>>>> replies suggesting that, to me, the answer is not obviously "yes".
>>>>
>>>> So far, no one (not even Agustin) has made any further comment.
>>>
>>> I said that if there's no macro I'd prefer to leave the code broken.
>>> That should have implied my motivation is weak. I think a macro fits the
>>> bill, but if lacks in popularity I'm not going to push for it.
>>
>> I tentatively agree, I see no need for a feature macro here.
>
> I can imagine a macro being useful:
>
> struct optional {
> bool b;
> T t;
> constexpr T *get() {
> return b ?
> #if __cpp_constexpr_addressof
> std::addressof(t)
> #else
> &t
> #endif
> : nullptr;
> }
> };

That's my use case :)

> The idea here is that it's more important that get() is constexpr than
> that it works if there's an overloaded operator&, so addressof is only
> used if it would actually work in a constant expression. Achieving
> this result with SFINAE seems difficult.

This appears to do the trick, but there's a chance that it is ill-formed:

     #if 0
     using std::addressof;
     #else
     template <typename T>
     constexpr T* addressof(T& v) { return &v; }
     #endif

     struct is_addressof_constexpr {
         static int _probe;

         template <typename T, T* = addressof(_probe)>
         static std::true_type check(T);

         static std::false_type check(...);

         static constexpr bool value =
             decltype(check(0))::value;
     };

     static_assert(is_addressof_constexpr::value, "");

Regards,

-- 
Agustín K-ballo Bergé
http://talesofcpp.fusionfenix.com