On 08/15/2014 03:00 PM, Aaron Ballman wrote: > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> wrote: >> Do we want to consider any ideas for attribute versioning? For >> instance, say there was a desire to allow [[noreturn]] on a lambda. >> With this proposal, there's no way to differentiate between versions >> of the [[noreturn]] attribute. We could use a feature test macro, but >> that's what this proposal really is. >> >> We could support this by changing the pp-number replacement (0 means >> not found, > 0 supported, but you could check the constant value to >> see what version is supported). > > Gently pinging this. > > Note: if it's a door we wish to leave open for the future, we could > accomplish this with a minor wording modification to what we have > already. Something like: > > The has-attribute-expression is replaced by <del>the pp-number > 1</del><ins>a nonzero pp-number</ins> if the implementation supports > an attribute with the specified name, and by the pp-number 0 > otherwise.
I believe we use year-month "version" numbers for other features, and we should do the same for __has_cpp_attribute. (year-month relates to the date a specification with that feature was published) I find this preferable to artificial 1,2,3 version numbers. Jens _______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
