Subject: Re: Macros in Prague Straw Polls Page
From: Jonathan Wakely (cxx_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-02-14 08:16:50
On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 14:13, Marc Mutz <marc.mutz_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 2020-02-14 14:55, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 13:14, Barry Revzin via SG10
> >> "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).
> The paper asks to adjust the value of __cpp_lib_erase_if in the first
> bullet point in the Wording chapter:
> > In [version.syn], adjust the value of the â__cpp_lib_erase_ifâ macro
> > to match the date of application of this paper to the IS draft
> I guess that covers it?
I assume Barry did what I did, skip to section 3.1 "Feature test macro" and
read that, and assumed there was no change.
SG10 list run by firstname.lastname@example.org