C++ Logo

SG10

Advanced search

Subject: Re: [SG10] Jacksonville additions: non-controversial?
From: Richard Smith (richard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-14 11:18:20


On 14 Mar 2016 9:11 a.m., "Nelson, Clark" <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> > > 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:
>
> __cpp_lib_optional
> __cpp_lib_any
> __cpp_lib_string_view
> __cpp_lib_memory_resource

I think so.

> Clark
> _______________________________________________
> Features mailing list
> Features_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features



SG10 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com