On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Nelson, Clark <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Here is a draft of SD-6, updated with decisions from the Kona meeting. >> > But >> > naturally, there are lot of places I mark guesses that I have made. >> > >> > Unfortunately, because the redlining is relative to the published SD-6, >> > it >> > might be less than obvious what is really new -- except that we changed >> > from >> > N-numbers to P-numbers at this meeting. >> > >> > As always, corrections and contributions are most earnestly welcomed. >> >> I am slightly confused about: >> >> N4266: Attributes for namespaces and enumerators >> >> Example: >> >> enum { >> old_val >> #if __cpp_enumerator_attributes >> [[deprecated]] >> #endif >> , new_val }; >> >> The notion of feature testing macros for C++ attributes was not voted >> favorably by EWG in Kona, and what I understand from reading the >> discussion (which could be me horribly misunderstanding the feeling in >> the room) was that there was insufficient motivation for such a thing. >> However, this is a feature testing macro... for an attribute, just >> with a different spelling than what SG-10 proposed. >> >> If we need this feature testing macro (which I believe we do), can we >> use this as a motivating case for EWG to reconsider as to why >> __has_cpp_attribute is valuable? > > > This is feature-testing for the ability to apply an attribute to an > enumeration, not for the [[deprecated]] attribute itself. Without the > #ifdef, the above code would fail to parse in compilers that do not > implement the change allowing attributes on enumerators.
And that's where my confusion used to lie. ;-) Thank you for clarifying, Richard. ~Aaron _______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
