> On Mar 14, 2016, at 11:18 AM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 14 Mar 2016 9:11 a.m., "Nelson, Clark" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > 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?) > > > > Technically, we don't need them. But the new headers from the fundamentals > > TS define their own macros, and we should consider consistency. > > > > Should we instead delete the macros for the new fundamentals headers: > > > > __cpp_lib_optional > > __cpp_lib_any > > __cpp_lib_string_view > > __cpp_lib_memory_resource > > I think so.
+1 — WEB _______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
