> On Mar 10, 2016, at 9:38 AM, Jason Merrill <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 03/10/2016 08:34 AM, Jens Maurer wrote: >> On 03/10/2016 01:41 PM, John Spicer wrote: >>> I’m wondering whether some of these should be updated values of existing >>> macros. >>> >>> For example, capture of this and constexpr lambdas *could* be an update of >>> __cpp_lambdas. >> >> Agreed, sounds more reasonable to me. > > That means that you can't test for support of one without the other, but > I guess that's OK.
The other way to go would be to have constexpr lambdas bump the value of __cpp_constexpr, or perhaps also bump both the lambda and constexpr values. John. > > Jason > > > _______________________________________________ > Features mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features _______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
