On 3/17/2021 6:43 PM, Arthur O'Dwyer via SG10 wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 1:35 PM Richard Smith <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 10:25 AM Arthur O'Dwyer via SG10
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
At the EWG telecon today, I was convinced that P2266 "Simpler
implicit move" <https://isocpp.org/files/papers/P2266R1.html>
needs a feature-test macro.
My question is, what should this feature-test macro's name
be? I asked EWG for suggestions and the answer was "not here,
go ask SG10."
I propose
#define __cpp_simpler_implicit_move [whatever]
where my understanding is that `[whatever]` will end up being
set to the date of the paper's adoption into the working draft.
Ship it? Or does anyone have relevant thoughts on naming?
I think a name with a comparative ("simpler") will age badly. I'd
suggest we either call this __cpp_implicit_move, or perhaps bump
the value of __cpp_rvalue_references.
My second choice is `__cpp_move_eligible`, since this introduces that
term of art into the standard.
The feature has nothing to do with rvalue references per se.
__cpp_move_eligible_id_expression
?
--
SG10 mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg10
