On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:26 AM, Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer@gmx.net> wrote:

On 02/03/2015 01:35 AM, Nelson, Clark wrote:
> Here is an updated document. I have added __cpp_noexcept as Ed proposed, and
> __cpp_forward_decl_enum, as he appears to have proposed. Ed didn't seem to
> make any other positive proposals, but I received an independent suggestion
> about explicit conversion operators, so I have added it as well.

We did quite a bit of surgery to enumerations in C++11,
e.g. we can now have explicit base types and scoping etc.

I'm wondering why we're highlighting the "forward declaration"
part, as opposed to just "__cpp_extended_enum" or simply
"__cpp_enum", with suitably-changing values?

I'm in two minds about this: by putting all the changes under the same name, we present a problem to implementations who implement only part of the new rules: they can't bump the version of their __cpp_enum macro until they implement the whole lot. But I do like avoiding the proliferation of macros tracking tiny changes, so if we don't anticipate any implementations in that state, then I'd prefer the more general macro name.