> For N3928 Extending static_assert why not just bump up the date on > __cpp_static_assert?
Yeah, that's definitely worth considering. The change is a pretty minor tweak. (The recommendations I included for this were the ones provided in N3928 -- thanks, Walter.) > Related to this I'm assuming an implementation is allowed to bump up the date > on a macro if they implement updates over several iterations of a feature. > Users could be encouraged to check __cpp_feature >= <some_min_date> for > example. You seem to be talking here about implementation dates. That's allowed, of course -- SD-6 contains only recommendations, after all -- but it would not actually constitute following the recommendations. It certainly wouldn't help with portability between implementations, which is our primary goal. > We could bump the date on __cpp_unicode_literals for - Scartch that - that's > for strings. > Just __cpp_utf8_char_literals I think. Noted, thanks. > N4295 - Folding expressions: __cpp_parameter_pack_sorcery, > __cpp_fold_expressions is probably better. Interesting. Richard, for my curiosity, can you explain why the title of the document doesn't match the terminology used in the document? > N4266 - Attributes for namespaces and enumerators. They really are sort of > two different things: > __cpp_namespace_attributes 201411 > __cpp_enumerator_attributes 201411 Hmm. It could be argued that each attribute that can appertain to a namespace or enumerator is a distinct thing. Today there is only one such attribute: deprecated. We could even consider bumping the value of __cpp_has_attribute(deprecated). > Safe conversions in unique_ptr<T[]> - Did you mean to say something about this? > A proposal to add invoke function template - __cpp_lib_invoke 201411. I think we want to be very careful about introducing a macro name that short. It wouldn't be consistent with our other macros, but maybe we should consider something like __cpp_lib_functional_invoke. > N4280 - Non-member size() and more: __cpp_lib_nonmember_container_access > 201411. OK. I have another question about this one. It mentions that the new declarations are available by including any of an even dozen headers. Does that mean that our recommendations should specify this macro as being defined by all of those headers? Clark _______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
