On Wed, 7 Sept 2022, 12:54 Tim Song, <t.canens.cpp_at_[hidden]> wrote:

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

Ah, great! I'll bow out then, thank you!


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
>>
>