On 9 October 2017 at 17:10, Nelson, Clark <clark.nelson@intel.com> wrote:
Perhaps I should also ask: should the name of the macro use the word "mandatory", or would "guaranteed" (as from the original document title) be better?


Yes, I was going to suggest "guaranteed".

 
Clark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: features-bounces@open-std.org [mailto:features-bounces@open-
> std.org] On Behalf Of Nelson, Clark
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 09:09
> To: Richard Smith <richard@metafoo.co.uk>; Ville Voutilainen
> <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com>
> Cc: features@isocpp.open-std.org <Features@open-std.org>
> Subject: Re: [SG10] A feature macro for mandatory copy elision
>
> > After a while pondering, the best example I've got to demonstrate a
> > need for the feature test macro is something like this:
> >
> > #ifdef __cpp_mandatory_copy_elision
> >
> > NoCopyNoMove indirectFactory() {
> >   return factory(1); // ill-formed prior to C++17
> > }
> > #endif
>
> At this point I gather that no one has an objection to providing a
> macro for mandatory copy elision.
>
> Should SD-6 contain an example like this one? It seems to me that
> there ought to be a different definition of indirectFactory under an
> #else, but I don't know what it should look like.
>
> Clark
> _______________________________________________
> Features mailing list
> Features@isocpp.open-std.org
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
_______________________________________________
Features mailing list
Features@isocpp.open-std.org
http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features