Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 01:43:03 +0200
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 00:59, Casey Carter <cartec69_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Shipping multiple feature-test macros for the same feature is trivially simple for implementors. Requiring users to check multiple feature-test macros to detect a single feature - the detection needs to work both in old and new implementations - seems hostile.
Fully agreed, but I don't see anyone suggesting such hostilities. You
can continue shipping the old spellings,
and we all can, and we can still do the policy-fixes in the standard,
and no user will be hurt the slightest.
That's what I mean by not seeing a convincing argument to deviate from
the policy; renaming
__cpp_lib_array_constexpr doesn't in any way prevent you from
continuing to ship that macro spelling.
>
> Shipping multiple feature-test macros for the same feature is trivially simple for implementors. Requiring users to check multiple feature-test macros to detect a single feature - the detection needs to work both in old and new implementations - seems hostile.
Fully agreed, but I don't see anyone suggesting such hostilities. You
can continue shipping the old spellings,
and we all can, and we can still do the policy-fixes in the standard,
and no user will be hurt the slightest.
That's what I mean by not seeing a convincing argument to deviate from
the policy; renaming
__cpp_lib_array_constexpr doesn't in any way prevent you from
continuing to ship that macro spelling.
Received on 2019-11-25 17:45:36