Strong preference for 2. As I pointed out in the telecon, __cpp_lib_ranges has already been bumped twice for changes to basic concepts ( https://isocpp.org/std/standing-documents/sd-6-sg10-feature-test-recommendations#__cpp_lib_ranges) that were both much larger than this: dropping the default constructor requirement (P2325) and clarify the O(1) rule and adding owning_view (P2415).
I don't think we have any other changes in flight for __cpp_lib_ranges that would conflict with this either. Barry On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 1:36 PM Michał Dominiak via SG10 < [email protected]> wrote: > Hello, SG10! > > When P2494 <http://wg21.link/P2494> was being discussed in LEWG, there > were two competing directions for how to handle its feature test macro: > > 1. introduce a new feature test macro that indicates this feature > specifically; and > 2. bump __cpp_lib_ranges, since other features in flight for ranges > have their own feature test macros. > > LEWG requested that I ask this group for a recommendation. Personally I'm > leaning towards option number 1, since it feels cleaner to me. > > Additionally, if this group recommends that I go with (1), I'd like > recommendations for what the name of the macro should be, because none of > the names that I'm coming up with are short enough to be usable, but also > long enough to be descriptive. > > Thanks, > Michał > -- > SG10 mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg10 >
-- SG10 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg10
