We already have one: https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3750

On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 6:46 AM Thomas Köppe via Lib <lib_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> OK, thanks! Who's going to file the issue? :-)
>
> On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 12:28, Ville Voutilainen <
> ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 14:17, Thomas Köppe via SG10
>> <sg10_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Aha, thanks -- yes, if the macros are normative, then it might indeed
>> be best if we resolve this four-fold value bump collision with an LWG issue
>> that captures the discussion.
>>
>> They seem plenty normative to me, or that has least been the intent.
>> The standard requires the presence and values
>> of a set of macros, and they affect the meaning of portable programs
>> written against a particular standard.
>>
>> Sure, the phrasing in [version.syn]/1, "The header <version> supplies
>> implementation-dependent information
>> about the C ++ standard library (e.g.,version number and release
>> date)." is a bit funny, because there shouldn't
>> be anything implementation-dependent about the macros and their
>> values. Luckily, "implementation-dependent"
>> is not a Term of Power. :)
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Lib mailing list
> Lib_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/lib
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/lib/2022/09/23610.php
>