C++ Logo

SG10

Advanced search

Subject: Re: Macros in Prague Straw Polls Page
From: Jonathan Wakely (cxx_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-02-14 07:55:39


On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 13:14, Barry Revzin via SG10
<sg10_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Hi SG10,
>
> What does the group think of the following papers.
>
> "Safe integral comparisons"
> http://wiki.edg.com/pub/Wg21prague/StrawPolls/P0586R2.html
> > In [version.syn] add the feature test macro __cpp_lib_cmp_equal // also defined in <utility>.
> The paper introduces 7 functions, one of which is cmp_equal. Should the macro be __cpp_lib_safe_integral_comparisons?

No, the word "safe" is toxic. "integral_comparison_functions" seems
better to me.

> "Improving the Return Value of Erase-Like Algorithms II:Freeerase/eraseif"
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1115r3.pdf
> This paper suggests no new feature test macro, but affects the return type of some functions introduced by the free erase/erase_if paper, should it bump the __cpp_lib_erase_if macro value?

Hmm, I thought LWG asked for a change to the macro.

I implemented P1115 months ago and bumped our macro to 201900 (i.e.
not a real value, but greater than the one in the C++20 draft).


SG10 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com