OK, thanks! Who's going to file the issue? :-) On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 12:28, Ville Voutilainen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 14:17, Thomas Köppe via SG10 > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Aha, thanks -- yes, if the macros are normative, then it might indeed be > best if we resolve this four-fold value bump collision with an LWG issue > that captures the discussion. > > They seem plenty normative to me, or that has least been the intent. > The standard requires the presence and values > of a set of macros, and they affect the meaning of portable programs > written against a particular standard. > > Sure, the phrasing in [version.syn]/1, "The header <version> supplies > implementation-dependent information > about the C ++ standard library (e.g.,version number and release > date)." is a bit funny, because there shouldn't > be anything implementation-dependent about the macros and their > values. Luckily, "implementation-dependent" > is not a Term of Power. :) >
-- SG10 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg10
