C++ Logo

SG10

Advanced search

Subject: Re: [SG10] A feature macro for mandatory copy elision
From: Nelson, Clark (clark.nelson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-10-09 11:10:54


Perhaps I should also ask: should the name of the macro use the word "mandatory", or would "guaranteed" (as from the original document title) be better?

Clark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: features-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:features-bounces_at_open-
> std.org] On Behalf Of Nelson, Clark
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 09:09
> To: Richard Smith <richard_at_[hidden]>; Ville Voutilainen
> <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>
> Cc: features_at_[hidden] <Features_at_[hidden]>
> Subject: Re: [SG10] A feature macro for mandatory copy elision
>
> > After a while pondering, the best example I've got to demonstrate a
> > need for the feature test macro is something like this:
> >
> > #ifdef __cpp_mandatory_copy_elision
> >
> > NoCopyNoMove indirectFactory() {
> > return factory(1); // ill-formed prior to C++17
> > }
> > #endif
>
> At this point I gather that no one has an objection to providing a
> macro for mandatory copy elision.
>
> Should SD-6 contain an example like this one? It seems to me that
> there ought to be a different definition of indirectFactory under an
> #else, but I don't know what it should look like.
>
> Clark
> _______________________________________________
> Features mailing list
> Features_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features


SG10 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com