> > Would it be fair to restate your questions as, why are we > recommending > > something like __has_attribute when we didn't recommend > __has_feature?
I was actually hoping someone would provide an answer to that question. I put __has_cpp_attribute into the document based on my sense of the March 17 meeting, which I recorded as "some sentiment" in favor. But before this is discussed in EWG next week, I'd like to have a clearer idea of the consensus within SG10. So please reply with your position. I myself am opposed -- weakly -- to the __has_attribute syntax, or some variation thereof, for all the reasons we didn't go with __has_feature in the first place, as I explained a couple of weeks ago. -- Clark Nelson Vice chair, PL22.16 (ANSI C++ standard committee) Intel Corporation Chair, SG10 (C++ SG for feature-testing) [email protected] Chair, CPLEX (C SG for parallel language extensions) _______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
