On Fri, 14 Feb 2020 at 13:14, Barry Revzin via SG10 <sg10@lists.isocpp.org> wrote: > > Hi SG10, > > What does the group think of the following papers. > > "Safe integral comparisons" > http://wiki.edg.com/pub/Wg21prague/StrawPolls/P0586R2.html > > In [version.syn] add the feature test macro __cpp_lib_cmp_equal // also > > defined in <utility>. > The paper introduces 7 functions, one of which is cmp_equal. Should the macro > be __cpp_lib_safe_integral_comparisons?
No, the word "safe" is toxic. "integral_comparison_functions" seems better to me. > "Improving the Return Value of Erase-Like Algorithms II:Freeerase/eraseif" > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2019/p1115r3.pdf > This paper suggests no new feature test macro, but affects the return type of > some functions introduced by the free erase/erase_if paper, should it bump > the __cpp_lib_erase_if macro value? Hmm, I thought LWG asked for a change to the macro. I implemented P1115 months ago and bumped our macro to 201900 (i.e. not a real value, but greater than the one in the C++20 draft). -- SG10 mailing list SG10@lists.isocpp.org https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg10
