On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 7:55 AM Jonathan Wakely <cxx_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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.
>

You mean after adding one "safe" to the working draft that we have an LWG
issue to remove, I shouldn't follow that up with adding a different "safe"?

Anyway, +1.


>
> > "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).
>