C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [SG10] New draft of Jacksonville additions

From: Richard Smith <richard_at_[hidden]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 18:21:58 -0700
Your reference to "P0235R1" is actually referring to P0253R1.

On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Nelson, Clark <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Here's a new draft. Significant changes:
> I deleted the macros identifying all of the brand-new headers, from both
> fundamentals and parallelism:
> <optional> <any> <string_view> <memory_resource>
> <exception_list> <execution_policy>
> The proposal (with rationale) is now that non-const data for string
> needs no macro, and similarly for enum construction rules.
> I have added a macro, with proposed spelling and example (from Richard;
> many thanks), for addressof (LWG2296).
> The change to fold expressions is represented by bumping the value of
> __cpp_fold_expressions. (There will be two adjacent lines in the C++17
> table, giving different values to that macro, depending on how many
> operators are given a default value.) I deleted the question mark.
> Consensus seems to support bumping __cpp_constexpr to indicate that
> it can apply to a lambda, so I deleted the question mark.
> No one has suggested a better name than __cpp_aggregate_bases, so I
> deleted the question mark.
> The only question that doesn't seem to have been settled yet is the
> name of the macro for this-capture. The contenders seem to be:
> __cpp_capture_this
> __cpp_capture_star_this
> Different people have spoken in favor of each. Let the argument begin
> in earnest.
> Clark
> _______________________________________________
> Features mailing list
> Features_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features

Received on 2016-03-15 02:22:00