C++ Logo


Advanced search

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

From: Nelson, Clark <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 16:11:41 +0000
> > 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?)

Technically, we don't need them. But the new headers from the fundamentals TS define their own macros, and we should consider consistency.

Should we instead delete the macros for the new fundamentals headers:



Received on 2016-03-14 17:11:48