> On Dec 30, 2014, at 11:54 AM, Nelson, Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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.)
You’re welcome, but I wish I had thought of Ed’s suggestion. Unless anyone objects, I recommend we adopt it, as (1) I like it better than any of mine, and (2) doing so seems entirely consistent with our document: "In a case where a feature is subsequently changed in a significant way, but arguably remains the same feature, the value of the macro is changed to indicate the “revision level” of the specification of the feature” [2.3 p5]. <snip> Best for 2015, — WEB _______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
