Stephen Kelly wrote: > Richard Smith wrote: > >> 1) That's a *lot* of macros. We might be able to get away with the cost >> of >> the number of macros that SG10 is currently proposing, but I would be >> *seriously* concerned about a measurable performance cost (on compiling >> an empty file, which is not actually an irrelevant concern) of >> predefining hundreds of __has_attribute macros. >> >> 2) Either of those identifiers could contain underscores, and there is >> no >> other separator character that works. >> >> [3) It's ugly.] > > Good points. >
Here's something I didn't expect: User libraries defining the __foo macros themselves: https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/c/87474/1//ALL,unified Should that be encouraged or discouraged? Thanks, Steve. _______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
