Subject: [SG10] Where SG10 and SD-6 should go from here
From: John Spicer (jhs_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-14 13:01:05
There have been some questions about what role, if any, SG10 should have now that feature test macros are in the IS.
My personal opinion is that there would be some value in maintaining SD-6 going forward so that we could have in one document a complete picture of the macro names and their values.
For example, if you look in the current working draft, it says that the value of _cpp_constexpr should be 201603L.
SD-6 provides the additional guidance that in C++14, it should be 201304, and in C++11 it should be 200704.
It is also possible that new language features could have more than one value during the production of a given standard cycle.
Perhaps we should have a short meeting in San Diego to discuss this?
SG10 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com