C++ Logo

SG10

Advanced search

Subject: Re: Macros in Prague Straw Polls Page
From: Richard Smith (richardsmith_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-02-15 02:31:14


On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 9:25 AM Jonathan Wakely via SG10 <
sg10_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 13:55, 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.
>>
>> > "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?
>>
>>
> I've just realised it should be *integer* comparison functions, not
> *integral* comparison functions. char and bool are integral types, but
> not supported by these functions. Only the signed and unsigned integer
> types are supported.
>

I concur with changing the feature test macro to
__cpp_lib_integer_comparison_functions.



SG10 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com