Would it be wrong to replace "impl" with "core"?

-- HT

On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 11:39 AM John Spicer <jhs_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Tuesday we discussed a few feature test macros that we want added at
> this meeting.
>
> At our lunch meeting, we suggested that the language one be named
> specially because for these features end-users need to test the library one
> to know if they have both the language feature and the library facility
> needed to use it. The language macro is primarily of use to library
> implementors.
>
> __cpp_lang_destroying_delete
> __cpp_destroying_delete
> __cpp_lang_destroying_delete
> __cpp_destroying_delete
>
> LWG did not like this approach. They want all library macros, which
> require a header to be included before they can be used, to begin with
> “__cpp_lib”. They also found “lang” no be insufficiently clear as a way
> to suggest that end-users should not use that macro.
>
> LWG would like to use:
>
> __cpp_impl_destroying_delete
> __cpp_lib_destroying_delete
>
> __cpp_impl_destroying_delete
> __cpp_lib_destroying_delete
>
> These changes are okay with me.
>
> What do you think of them?
>
> The paper that describes the changes is available here:
>
> http://wiki.edg.com/pub/Wg21sandiego2018/CoreWorkingGroup/d1353r0.html
>
> John.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Features mailing list
> Features_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
>