Subject: Re: [SG10] Jacksonville additions: non-controversial?
From: W Brown (webrown.cpp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-14 14:31:08
> On Mar 14, 2016, at 11:18 AM, Richard Smith <richard_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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.
SG10 list run by firstname.lastname@example.org