On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 12:32:47PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote: > Perhaps, but CONSTEXPR seems to be more awkward than OVERRIDE and > FINAL. The meanings of "final" and "override" are consistent between > C++11 and C++14, but C++14 allows more things to be marked as > "constexpr" than C++11. Hence having a single "CONSTEXPR" macro might > not be sufficient. Perhaps there'd be CONSTEXPR_11 and CONSTEXPR_14 > macros for things that are constexpr in C++11 onwards and constexpr in > C++14 onwards, respectively? (seems ugly to me).
Yeah, or CONSTEXPR and CONSTEXPR14 could work, sure. > Are the OVERRIDE and FINAL macros OK for trunk? Yes. Jakub