Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2016 17:48:26 -0500
> On Dec 19, 2016, at 5:27 PM, Richard Smith <richard_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0195r2.html <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0195r2.html> suggests a feature test macro of __cpp_variadic_using; the value would presumably be 201611. Does that seem OK to everyone?
>
I think it is okay.
I think it is slightly odd as the change is to allow multiple names in a using-declaration, but the expected use case is for variadics.
I’d also be okay with something like __cpp_multi_using.
__cpp_variadic_using had more support when it was discussed in core, FWIW.
John.
>
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0195r2.html <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2016/p0195r2.html> suggests a feature test macro of __cpp_variadic_using; the value would presumably be 201611. Does that seem OK to everyone?
>
I think it is okay.
I think it is slightly odd as the change is to allow multiple names in a using-declaration, but the expected use case is for variadics.
I’d also be okay with something like __cpp_multi_using.
__cpp_variadic_using had more support when it was discussed in core, FWIW.
John.
Received on 2016-12-19 23:48:29