Would it be wrong to replace "impl" with "core"? -- HT
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 11:39 AM John Spicer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday we discussed a few feature test macros that we want added at > this meeting. > > At our lunch meeting, we suggested that the language one be named > specially because for these features end-users need to test the library one > to know if they have both the language feature and the library facility > needed to use it. The language macro is primarily of use to library > implementors. > > __cpp_lang_destroying_delete > __cpp_destroying_delete > __cpp_lang_destroying_delete > __cpp_destroying_delete > > LWG did not like this approach. They want all library macros, which > require a header to be included before they can be used, to begin with > “__cpp_lib”. They also found “lang” no be insufficiently clear as a way > to suggest that end-users should not use that macro. > > LWG would like to use: > > __cpp_impl_destroying_delete > __cpp_lib_destroying_delete > > __cpp_impl_destroying_delete > __cpp_lib_destroying_delete > > These changes are okay with me. > > What do you think of them? > > The paper that describes the changes is available here: > > http://wiki.edg.com/pub/Wg21sandiego2018/CoreWorkingGroup/d1353r0.html > > John. > > _______________________________________________ > Features mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features >
_______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
