On 06/02/2014 11:10 PM, Nelson, Clark wrote: >> My understanding falls short in trying to understand the >> difference in >> (possible) recommendation of __has_cpp_attribute and the non- >> recommendation >> of __has_feature, where recommending it would seem to be >> consistent. If it's >> too much, just let me know and I'll stop trying to understand. > OK, I didn't realize until now that your concern was about the apparent > inconsistency between not recommending __has_feature and recommending > __has_[cpp_]attribute. > > Would it be fair to restate your questions as, why are we recommending > something like __has_attribute when we didn't recommend __has_feature?
Yes, that's a fair restatement of the thoughts motivating my feedback. Thanks, Steve. _______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
