On 12/01/2022 21.34, Barry Revzin via SG10 wrote:
> Strong preference for 2.

Agreed. This is a relatively minor upgrade
to the existing ranges stuff and not really
a fresh, clearly separable feature (such as
a new algorithm).

Jens


> 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 <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] <mailto: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] <mailto:SG10_at_[hidden]>
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg10 <https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg10>
>
>