The paper isn't in the mailing yet, so I believe I can simply update it to
include a feature-test macro as well. Seems like a good fit for the
proposal.

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 at 11:02, Giuseppe D'Angelo <giuseppe.dangelo_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> On 26/02/2025 02:48, F. v.S. via Std-Discussion wrote:
> > It's possibly intended that P1494R5 "Partial program correctness"
> > doesn't add any feature-test macro. I'm convinced by Jens Maurer that
> > there shouldn't be a core FTM. But given there's already
> > __cpp_lib_unreachable, shouldn't there be __cpp_lib_observable?
> >
>
> Yes, I would agree that there should be one.
>
> Note that there's currently a draft (P3641R0) that proposes to rename
> std::observable() to std::observable_checkpoint(); if that paper gets
> accepted, the FTM should likely become __cpp_lib_observable_checkpoint.
> (P3641 isn't proposing the FTM, though.)
>
> My 2 c,
> --
> Giuseppe D'Angelo
>