Strong preference for 2.

As I pointed out in the telecon, __cpp_lib_ranges has already been bumped
twice for changes to basic concepts (
https://isocpp.org/std/standing-documents/sd-6-sg10-feature-test-recommendations#__cpp_lib_ranges)
that were both much larger than this: dropping the default constructor
requirement (P2325) and clarify the O(1) rule and adding owning_view
(P2415).

I don't think we have any other changes in flight for __cpp_lib_ranges that
would conflict with this either.

Barry

On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 1:36 PM Michał Dominiak via SG10 <
sg10_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hello, SG10!
>
> When P2494 <http://wg21.link/P2494> was being discussed in LEWG, there
> were two competing directions for how to handle its feature test macro:
>
> 1. introduce a new feature test macro that indicates this feature
> specifically; and
> 2. bump __cpp_lib_ranges, since other features in flight for ranges
> have their own feature test macros.
>
> LEWG requested that I ask this group for a recommendation. Personally I'm
> leaning towards option number 1, since it feels cleaner to me.
>
> Additionally, if this group recommends that I go with (1), I'd like
> recommendations for what the name of the macro should be, because none of
> the names that I'm coming up with are short enough to be usable, but also
> long enough to be descriptive.
>
> Thanks,
> Michał
> --
> SG10 mailing list
> SG10_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg10
>