Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2018 22:41:27 +0200
On 07/30/2018 07:55 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 at 01:21, Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden] <mailto:ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>
> Hi! It seems reasonable to enable spaceship operator support
> for 3rd party types conditionally. See
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/235303/
>
>
> I agree.
>
> Perhaps __cpp_spaceship and __cpp_lib_spaceship,
> for the language feature and the library support, respectively?
>
>
> I think I would weakly prefer __cpp_three_way_comparison / __cpp_lib_three_way_comparison.
Sounds good to me. (Yes, we should reserve the "spaceship" joke
for the standard's section label.)
Jens
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2018 at 01:21, Ville Voutilainen <ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden] <mailto:ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>
> Hi! It seems reasonable to enable spaceship operator support
> for 3rd party types conditionally. See
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/235303/
>
>
> I agree.
>
> Perhaps __cpp_spaceship and __cpp_lib_spaceship,
> for the language feature and the library support, respectively?
>
>
> I think I would weakly prefer __cpp_three_way_comparison / __cpp_lib_three_way_comparison.
Sounds good to me. (Yes, we should reserve the "spaceship" joke
for the standard's section label.)
Jens
Received on 2018-08-02 22:46:35