On 3/17/2021 6:43 PM, Arthur O'Dwyer via SG10 wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 1:35 PM Richard Smith <richardsmith_at_[hidden]
> <mailto:richardsmith_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 10:25 AM Arthur O'Dwyer via SG10
> <sg10_at_[hidden] <mailto:sg10_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>
> At the EWG telecon today, I was convinced that P2266 "Simpler
> implicit move" <https://isocpp.org/files/papers/P2266R1.html>
> needs a feature-test macro.
>
> My question is, what should this feature-test macro's name
> be? I asked EWG for suggestions and the answer was "not here,
> go ask SG10."
>
> I propose
> #define __cpp_simpler_implicit_move [whatever]
>
> where my understanding is that `[whatever]` will end up being
> set to the date of the paper's adoption into the working draft.
>
> Ship it? Or does anyone have relevant thoughts on naming?
>
>
> I think a name with a comparative ("simpler") will age badly. I'd
> suggest we either call this __cpp_implicit_move, or perhaps bump
> the value of __cpp_rvalue_references.
>
>
> My second choice is `__cpp_move_eligible`, since this introduces that
> term of art into the standard.
> The feature has nothing to do with rvalue references per se.

__cpp_move_eligible_id_expression

?