On 10/14/2018 08:01 PM, John Spicer wrote: > There have been some questions about what role, if any, SG10 should have now > that feature test macros are in the IS. > > My personal opinion is that there would be some value in maintaining SD-6 > going forward so that we could have in one document a complete picture of the > macro names and their values. > > For example, if you look in the current working draft, it says that the value > of _cpp_constexpr should be 201603L. > > SD-6 provides the additional guidance that in C++14, it should be 201304, and > in C++11 it should be 200704. > > It is also possible that new language features could have more than one value > during the production of a given standard cycle. > > Perhaps we should have a short meeting in San Diego to discuss this?
I'd suggest to meet Tuesday over lunch. Last I heard, we have sponsored lunch at the hotel, so we should quickly find a spot to sit down. Meeting during regular meeting hours would likely deprive CWG of quorum. Jens _______________________________________________ Features mailing list Features@isocpp.open-std.org http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
