On 12/30/2014 05:07 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote: > On 12/29/2014 08:45 PM, Nelson, Clark wrote: >> N3928 <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n3928.pdf> >> Extending static_assert >> > Thank you for this. My first 0.02 * monetary_unit; > > For N3928 > <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n3928.pdf>Extending > static_assert why not just bump up the date on |__cpp_static_assert?|
Strongly agreed. > N4295 <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4295.html> - > Folding expressions: [...] __cpp_fold_expressions is probably better. Agreed. > N4266 <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4266.html> - > Attributes for namespaces and enumerators. They really are sort of two > different things: > > __cpp_namespace_attributes 201411 > __cpp_enumerator_attributes 201411 Agreed. There is a combinatorial space out there: Which attribute is supported in which position (in general, not just namespaces/enumerators)? I don't think we want to go there. > "Wording for Forwarding References" is editorial I'm pretty sure Yes, it is. > as is > "Cleanup for exception-specification and throw-expression" Yes, indeed. Jens _______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
