On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Aaron Ballman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Nelson, Clark <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Here is a draft of SD-6, updated with decisions from the Kona meeting. > But > > naturally, there are lot of places I mark guesses that I have made. > > > > Unfortunately, because the redlining is relative to the published SD-6, > it > > might be less than obvious what is really new -- except that we changed > from > > N-numbers to P-numbers at this meeting. > > > > As always, corrections and contributions are most earnestly welcomed. > > I am slightly confused about: > > N4266: Attributes for namespaces and enumerators > > Example: > > enum { > old_val > #if __cpp_enumerator_attributes > [[deprecated]] > #endif > , new_val }; > > The notion of feature testing macros for C++ attributes was not voted > favorably by EWG in Kona, and what I understand from reading the > discussion (which could be me horribly misunderstanding the feeling in > the room) was that there was insufficient motivation for such a thing. > However, this is a feature testing macro... for an attribute, just > with a different spelling than what SG-10 proposed. > > If we need this feature testing macro (which I believe we do), can we > use this as a motivating case for EWG to reconsider as to why > __has_cpp_attribute is valuable? This is feature-testing for the ability to apply an attribute to an enumeration, not for the [[deprecated]] attribute itself. Without the #ifdef, the above code would fail to parse in compilers that do not implement the change allowing attributes on enumerators.
_______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
