That does not sound entirely sane to me: I think you're suggesting
that a programmer would duplicate some set of numeric literals, just
so they could put digit separators in one copy of them. The risk of
the two copies becoming out-of-sync seems like sufficient
justification for any
I see portability as the main goal with SD-6: If a newer feature
is not
available on one of your target platform/compiler combinations you
have
to roll back to the older facility. Different compilers are at
different places toward full feature support.
Of course; but N4190 doesn't add a
The real (slight) reluctance: There is a tiny risk removing macros that
have been shipped. OTOH, if no one in their right mind would use them
then they shouldn't be out in the wild and then I say go ahead.
It might be nice to have this solidified soonish so I can maybe back out
before
On 01/08/2015 08:29 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Nelson, Clark clark.nel...@intel.com
mailto:clark.nel...@intel.com wrote:
N4051 Allow typename in a template template parameter
__cpp_typename_in_template_template_parm 201411
This may be too
On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Ed Smith-Rowland 3dw...@verizon.net wrote:
On 01/08/2015 08:29 PM, Richard Smith wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Nelson, Clark clark.nel...@intel.com
wrote:
N4051 Allow typename in a template template parameter
On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Nelson, Clark clark.nel...@intel.com
wrote:
Finally looking at
N4258: Cleaning-up noexcept in the Library
The only thing I can think of that would be helpful is
__cpp_lib_allocator_is_always_equal
The really interesting question about this, like
On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Richard Smith rich...@metafoo.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Nelson, Clark clark.nel...@intel.com
wrote:
N4266 - Attributes for namespaces and enumerators. They really are sort
of two different things:
__cpp_namespace_attributes 201411
On 12/30/2014 12:54 PM, Nelson, Clark wrote:
For N3928 Extending static_assert why not just bump up the date on
__cpp_static_assert?
Yeah, that's definitely worth considering. The change is a pretty minor
tweak. (The recommendations I included for this were the ones provided
in N3928 --
I have finally gotten around to updating SD-6 on isocpp.org:
https://isocpp.org/std/standing-documents/sd-6-sg10-feature-test-recommendations
What's up there now differs from N4200 in just a few minor ways (according
to my intention and knowledge):
1. An updated document date and history.
2. A
