On 7 September 2017 at 18:09, Nelson, Clark <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I noticed that, although our draft says that there should be no macro for P0032R3, we have no statement of rationale for that absence. So I looked into the situation a little closer, to see if I could figure out the reason.
>
> I think we were thinking that the changes to variant were being made at the same time "variant" was originally adopted into the WD. That's a good reason for no macro.
>
> But P0032 also changed the interface for "any" and "optional", which were adopted into the WD at the previous meeting. So it could definitely be argued that P0032 should have updated the values of __cpp_lib_any and __cpp_lib_optional.
>
> Should we go ahead and do that? If not, is the reason that we think there were no shipped implementations of the originally-defined interfaces for "any" and "optional"?

There definitely were shipping implementations. I think we should
update the __cp_lib_any and __cpp_lib_optional macros to reflect the
changed APIs.