On Fri, 9 Nov 2018 at 19:43, Hubert Tong <[email protected]> wrote:
> Would it be wrong to replace "impl" with "core"? > Either core or impl in there seems OK to me. > > -- 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 >
_______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
