Subject: Fwd: [isocpp-lib] P0591R4 Utility functions to implement uses-allocator construction
From: Jonathan Wakely (cxx_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-10-26 10:24:04
See the forwarded mail below. We didn't add a macro for P0591R4. Should we?
Any objection to my proposed name?
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jonathan Wakely <cxx_at_[hidden]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 at 10:21
Subject: Re: [isocpp-lib] P0591R4 Utility functions to implement
To: Library Working Group <lib_at_[hidden]>
On Sat, 17 Nov 2018 at 23:53, Jonathan Wakely <cxx_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 at 22:03, Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Seems to be missing a feature-test macro, although it adds a couple of
>> functions to the standard library.
>> Is the omission intentional?
> I don't believe so, I think we just overlooked it.
>> If not, let's have an LWG issue to add one in Kona.
Resurrecting an old thread, I don't think we ever added an issue about the
missing feature test macro for P0591R4. Does anybody remember if we
discussed it and decided it wasn't needed?
I'm going to define __cpp_lib_make_obj_using_allocator 201811L in
libstdc++, because I want to use it in <scoped_allocator> and
<memory_resource> to know when <memory> provides these new functions
(without having to repeat the same preprocessor conditions that <memory>
SG10 list run by email@example.com