On 22 July 2016 at 01:48, Richard Smith <richard_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Nelson, Clark <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>> > All the variant changes from Oulu should be covered by
>> > __has_include(<variant>); I don't think we have a need to track them
>> > separately unless someone chooses to produce a <variant> header that
>> > doesn't match the contents of any working draft.
>>
>> I note that you don't mention the changes to "any" or "optional". Should I
>> infer that you think those changes deserve a macro, even though the
>> previous state appeared in only one WD?
>
>
> I'd be happy not adding a macro for those either if no-one has shipped the
> previous version yet. (And if they already have, I think we'd need to
> discuss this, but it's still probably also appropriate to not add a macro.)
>
>
I agree.

FWIW we haven't shipped those types in namespace std yet but when we do
it'll be the ones from the CD, not the pre-Oulu versions.