On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 22:13, Billy O'Neal (VC LIBS) <[email protected]> wrote: > > While that is remotely plausible to me, would you consider it plausible > > that implementations would provide __cpp_lib_meow even if the standard > > doesn't require it? > > I would consider an implementation needing to provide something that is not > in the standard to be reasonable, to be an unreasonable status quo.
I don't see how that's particularly different from an implementation continuing to provide any facility that has been removed from the standard after it used to be there, in older standards or even drafts. > > it's highly questionable whether policy-consistency is worth this > > particular bit of churn > I guess I don't know why there's still an argument about it then since the > status quo as of post-Belfast introduces no such churn. I'm a bit puzzled about whether you have read the first message in this thread. -- SG10 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg10
