I'm fine with bumping the number

> -----Original Message-----
> From: SG10 <sg10-bounces_at_[hidden]> On Behalf Of John Spicer via
> SG10
> Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 10:41 AM
> To: Jonathan Wakely via SG10 <sg10_at_[hidden]>
> Cc: John Spicer <jhs_at_[hidden]>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [SG10] P1973R1: what value for the feature test
> macro?
>
> +1
>
> > On Mar 4, 2020, at 11:38 AM, Jens Maurer via SG10 <sg10_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
> >
> > On 04/03/2020 01.16, Richard Smith via SG10 wrote:
> >>
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://wiki.edg.com/pub/Wg21prague/Straw
> Polls/P1973R1.pdf__;!!FbZ0ZwI3Qg!-
> oDRwFKergMhu9sTHyBLycrBOPsQzVXDi0l_PtqFS0qWv51_sIN5hX_9NoIF$
> renames __cpp_lib_smart_ptr_default_init to
> __cpp_lib_smart_ptr_for_overwrite but includes no instruction to change
> the number. Normally the number in a feature test macro indicates the
> adoption date of the most recent proposal affecting that feature.
> >>
> >> What does SG10 want? Should the number be bumped to 202002L or left
> as 201811L despite referring to things that didn't exist until this most recent
> meeting? My inclination is to bump the number; I don't see any reason to not
> do so.
> >>
> >> Preferences?
> >
> > Bump the number.
> >
> > Jens
> >
> >
> > --
> > SG10 mailing list
> > SG10_at_[hidden]
> >
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg
> 10__;!!FbZ0ZwI3Qg!-
> oDRwFKergMhu9sTHyBLycrBOPsQzVXDi0l_PtqFS0qWv51_sIN5hYzKzoUP$
>
> --
> SG10 mailing list
> SG10_at_[hidden]
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg
> 10__;!!FbZ0ZwI3Qg!-
> oDRwFKergMhu9sTHyBLycrBOPsQzVXDi0l_PtqFS0qWv51_sIN5hYzKzoUP$