On 03/25/2015 12:30 AM, Nelson, Clark wrote: >> Should TSes use the macro spelling pattern >> >> __cpp_experimental_whatever >> >> or >> >> __cpp_whatever >> >> assuming that the value of the macro will change anyway when >> a feature >> moves from TS land to the standard proper? > > The question is, when a feature from a TS is incorporated into the standard, > will it be changed enough to effectively make it a different feature from > what was in the TS? If not, the same macro name should be used; if so, it > should be a different macro name. > > Changing the macro's value is perfectly OK when only a minor tweak is made. > > Is your principal concern about the TM TS? Is there an expectation that a > feature-test macro will be added to it before it is finalized?
Yes, there's an NB comment for it. (We made one.) We'll go with __cpp_transactional_memory . I don't expect large changes before going into the standard. > All I can say about "experimental" language features is that it sure would > be nice if we could get them right in the TS, so that, when (or if) they are > incorporated into the standard, they don't have to be changed enough to be > considered a different feature. Ok. That seems to be consistent with the TM approach. Thanks, Jens _______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
