Date: Sat, 6 May 2023 07:12:30 -0500
> On 6 May 2023, at 06:33, Marcin Jaczewski via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> If we `__has_cpp_attribute` interpreted as "I implement this attribute
> functionality", then yes, we could use this macro.
> But if it means "I know that attribute exists" like older MSVS did,
> then we could not use it.
This is a known ambiguity in the standard. At the last committee meeting in Issaquah, we decided in EWG that we want to fix this ambiguity to mean the former ("I implement this attribute's functionality"), so I am now preparing a paper with wording which will hopefully be discussed at the next meeting in Varna. Stay tuned.
Cheers,
Timur
> If we `__has_cpp_attribute` interpreted as "I implement this attribute
> functionality", then yes, we could use this macro.
> But if it means "I know that attribute exists" like older MSVS did,
> then we could not use it.
This is a known ambiguity in the standard. At the last committee meeting in Issaquah, we decided in EWG that we want to fix this ambiguity to mean the former ("I implement this attribute's functionality"), so I am now preparing a paper with wording which will hopefully be discussed at the next meeting in Varna. Stay tuned.
Cheers,
Timur
Received on 2023-05-06 12:12:48