Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2025 18:15:12 +0100
> On 20 Mar 2025, at 16:16, Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 20 March 2025 07:50:24 Pacific Daylight Time Hans Åberg via Std-
> Proposals wrote:
>> The second part is the ability to implement it on your own. This part is
>> tricky, and it is unclear if it can be admitted.
>
> I don't think it can. That's what I am arguing is fragile.
I found a way:
If a declaration is marked “unimplemented”, then also the definition must have it. If implemented in a later compiler version, then this label is reoved, and the linker chooses the definition without the label.
A similar linker override already exists for global operator new.
>
> On Thursday, 20 March 2025 07:50:24 Pacific Daylight Time Hans Åberg via Std-
> Proposals wrote:
>> The second part is the ability to implement it on your own. This part is
>> tricky, and it is unclear if it can be admitted.
>
> I don't think it can. That's what I am arguing is fragile.
I found a way:
If a declaration is marked “unimplemented”, then also the definition must have it. If implemented in a later compiler version, then this label is reoved, and the linker chooses the definition without the label.
A similar linker override already exists for global operator new.
Received on 2025-03-20 17:15:25