Subject: Re: [SG10] Example for __cpp_lib_byte
From: Herb Sutter (herb.sutter_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-10-20 20:03:04
> > Furthermore, since we usually are in the business of standardizing
> > things that users otherwise have to write many times themselves: Has
> > SG10 considered actively defining a <std-forward-compat> header
> > library that does the above for all the things it can, the idea being
> > that users who have to target multiple implementations at various
> > stages of conformance can include <std-forward-compat> after all their
> > standard library's own headers and write their code more closely
> > against the actual latest IS's std:: library,
> > without having to reinvent the above by hand (incompatibly on
> > different systems), as a transition tool to help encourage people to
> > adopt the latest standard?
> That's a very interesting idea, but might it make more sense for it to be
> by LWG, as opposed to SG10?
Whoever owns the feature tests should own how to use and adopt them so I
would think the <std-forward-compat> header would fall under that. After
all, it should be kept in sync with the feature tests.
So initially to get the ball rolling, since we have a set of tests already
that are maintained by SG10, wouldn't it be expected that the initial header
to be created by SG10 too -- again, just to get the ball rolling?
Going forward, if we standardize feature tests, then we will presumably
expect each proposal author to suggest a feature test (where appropriate)
and a <std-forward-compat> mechanism (if appropriate).
Is that reasonable?
SG10 list run by email@example.com