“core” was one of the alternatives I suggested to LWG, but they didn’t find that better than “lang”, so I went with their suggestion of “impl”.
John. > On Nov 9, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Hubert Tong <hubert.reinterpretc...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Would it be wrong to replace "impl" with "core"? > > -- HT > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 11:39 AM John Spicer <j...@edg.com > <mailto:j...@edg.com>> wrote: > On Tuesday we discussed a few feature test macros that we want added at this > meeting. > > At our lunch meeting, we suggested that the language one be named specially > because for these features end-users need to test the library one to know if > they have both the language feature and the library facility needed to use > it. The language macro is primarily of use to library implementors. > > __cpp_lang_destroying_delete > __cpp_destroying_delete > __cpp_lang_destroying_delete > __cpp_destroying_delete > > LWG did not like this approach. They want all library macros, which require > a header to be included before they can be used, to begin with “__cpp_lib”. > They also found “lang” no be insufficiently clear as a way to suggest that > end-users should not use that macro. > > LWG would like to use: > > __cpp_impl_destroying_delete > __cpp_lib_destroying_delete > > __cpp_impl_destroying_delete > __cpp_lib_destroying_delete > > These changes are okay with me. > > What do you think of them? > > The paper that describes the changes is available here: > > http://wiki.edg.com/pub/Wg21sandiego2018/CoreWorkingGroup/d1353r0.html > <http://wiki.edg.com/pub/Wg21sandiego2018/CoreWorkingGroup/d1353r0.html> > > John. > > _______________________________________________ > Features mailing list > Features@isocpp.open-std.org <mailto:Features@isocpp.open-std.org> > http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features > <http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features>
_______________________________________________ Features mailing list Features@isocpp.open-std.org http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
