On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 22:13, Billy O'Neal (VC LIBS) <bion_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > While that is remotely plausible to me, would you consider it plausible that implementations would provide __cpp_lib_meow even if the standard doesn't require it?
>
> I would consider an implementation needing to provide something that is not in the standard to be reasonable, to be an unreasonable status quo.

I don't see how that's particularly different from an implementation
continuing to provide any facility that has been
removed from the standard after it used to be there, in older
standards or even drafts.

> > it's highly questionable whether policy-consistency is worth this particular bit of churn
> I guess I don't know why there's still an argument about it then since the status quo as of post-Belfast introduces no such churn.

I'm a bit puzzled about whether you have read the first message in this thread.