On 03/11/2016 07:59 PM, Nelson, Clark wrote: > Several of my proposals have attracted no comments so far: > > __cpp_hex_float NEW > __cpp_range_based_for BUMP
Fine with me. > __cpp_aggregate_bases NEW Aggregating bases? Anyway, absent a better suggestion, fine with me. > searcher design mistake no macro Fine with me. > I also want to specifically call attention to the hardware interference > (cache-line) size proposal. The paper proposed: > > __cpp_lib_thread_hardware_interference_size > > But "thread" is not in the name proposed for the library, so it > shouldn't be in the name of the macro either. (Apparently that was left > over from the original proposal, in which this was provided by the > thread class.) I think shortening that name is the obviously correct > thing to do. Agreed. > Finally, I proposed making the new headers from the parallelism TS > consistent with those from the fundamentals TS by adding macros (with > specific values) defined within those headers: > > __cpp_lib_exception_list > __cpp_lib_execution_policy Fine with me. (Why do we need these, again? If there is a new header, isn't the __has_header<> thing enough?) Jens _______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
