Your reference to "P0235R1" is actually referring to P0253R1.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:19 PM, Nelson, Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > Here's a new draft. Significant changes: > > I deleted the macros identifying all of the brand-new headers, from both > fundamentals and parallelism: > > <optional> <any> <string_view> <memory_resource> > <exception_list> <execution_policy> > > The proposal (with rationale) is now that non-const data for string > needs no macro, and similarly for enum construction rules. > > I have added a macro, with proposed spelling and example (from Richard; > many thanks), for addressof (LWG2296). > > The change to fold expressions is represented by bumping the value of > __cpp_fold_expressions. (There will be two adjacent lines in the C++17 > table, giving different values to that macro, depending on how many > operators are given a default value.) I deleted the question mark. > > Consensus seems to support bumping __cpp_constexpr to indicate that > it can apply to a lambda, so I deleted the question mark. > > No one has suggested a better name than __cpp_aggregate_bases, so I > deleted the question mark. > > > The only question that doesn't seem to have been settled yet is the > name of the macro for this-capture. The contenders seem to be: > > __cpp_capture_this > __cpp_capture_star_this > > Different people have spoken in favor of each. Let the argument begin > in earnest. > > Clark > > _______________________________________________ > 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
