On 09/29/2014 03:46 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 08/14/2014 07:37 PM, Nelson, Clark wrote:
I have made a few minor revisions since N4030.
The redlining in the document is relative to the published SD-6; I think
that's the way we'll want to publish it. But here is what I've changed
recently:
In response to Ed Smith-Rowland's question about <optional> vs.
<experimental/optional> I updated the __has_include example. Of course it's
just an example, but I think it's more helpful now than it was.
In response to Walter's question about the "policy" for the C++14 table, I
minimally tweaked the text. :-)
In response to Richard's question/complaint, I deleted "has" from the macro
names for new features added by LWG issues.
There are sentences in the rationale section about features removed from
C++14 to a TS; I have changed them from editorial notes to plain old text.
(I don't know what's going to happen with the array extension TS, but it is
still an official project with an official number; hopefully something will
come of it.)
This still needs work in three areas:
1. We need introductory text and rationale for __has_cpp_attribute.
(Richard?)
2. We need to approve what we want to do about the LWG issues that Alisdair
brought up.
3. We need to make final determinations about shared_mutex.
--
Clark Nelson Vice chair, PL22.16 (ANSI C++ standard committee)
Intel Corporation Chair, SG10 (C++ SG for feature-testing)
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Chair, CPLEX (C
SG for parallel language extensions)
_______________________________________________
Features mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
I apologize for sending this so late but I thought I had lost some
notes regarding C++98 and C++11.
I collected some thoughts on "finishing" these areas if that is
desired.
Here are some macros to finish-out C++11:
C++11
-----
N2439 __cpp_reference_qualifiers 200710 This has library
usage
ref_qualifiers, to match the name of the grammar term?
Works for me.
N2756 __cpp_nsdmi 200809 Hate to spell this out :-(
NSDMI is GCC terminology; the standard calls these
"brace-or-equal-initializers for non-static data members". My
preferred terminology (with Project Editor hat on) is "default
initializers". But...
__cpp_aggregate_default_initializers Or this, borrowed from
CMake?
... we already have __cpp_aggregate_nsdmi, which is ... presumably ...
what CMake means by this?
If we had a time machine, I'd like __cpp_default_initializers ==
200809L here and __cpp_default_initializers == 201304L for N3653. As
things stand, the most consistent thing is probably '__cpp_nsdmi'.
Ditto. I guess I was feeling wordy when I wrote this :-)
N1986 __cpp_delegating_constructors 200604 Users can migrate
from initializer functions
N2540 __cpp_inheriting_constructors 200802 Ditto
N2930 __cpp_range_based_for_loops 200907
Seems a bit wordy. __cpp_range_for ?
Cool.
N2672 __cpp_initializer_lists 200806
Some popular C++ compilers still don't support all these.
It doeas add a few more macros but it finishes C++11.
Other compilers may emerge that need to "work their way up"
through these features.
I could go either way on this - I know some don't want to clutter
up compilers with lots of macros.
C++98
-----
__cpp_exceptions 199711L
__cpp_run_time_type_id 199711L
I'd prefer __cpp_rtti
That's reasonable. Everyone knows what rtti means.
_______________________________________________
Features mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
