Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 09:09:12 -0500
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 8:45 AM Thomas Köppe via Core <core_at_[hidden]>
wrote:
> Hello Core!
>
> I was contacted regarding P0614R1
> <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0614r1.html>,
> which adds an optional initializer to the range-based "for" loop. The
> proposal did not add any feature test macros. The person suggested
> updating __cpp_range_based_for to a more recent value (suggested "2017L").
>
> Do you think we should do that? Is it even editorial?
>
> Thank you!
>
> Thomas
>
CCing SG10.
See Richard's response here: https://lists.isocpp.org/sg10/2020/03/0708.php.
Barry
wrote:
> Hello Core!
>
> I was contacted regarding P0614R1
> <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0614r1.html>,
> which adds an optional initializer to the range-based "for" loop. The
> proposal did not add any feature test macros. The person suggested
> updating __cpp_range_based_for to a more recent value (suggested "2017L").
>
> Do you think we should do that? Is it even editorial?
>
> Thank you!
>
> Thomas
>
CCing SG10.
See Richard's response here: https://lists.isocpp.org/sg10/2020/03/0708.php.
Barry
Received on 2020-04-06 09:12:37