On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 19:43, Hubert Tong <hubert.reinterpretcast_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

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

Either core or impl in there seems OK to me.




>
> -- 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Features mailing list
> Features_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
>