Perhaps I should also ask: should the name of the macro use the word "mandatory", or would "guaranteed" (as from the original document title) be better?
Clark > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:features-bounces@open- > std.org] On Behalf Of Nelson, Clark > Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 09:09 > To: Richard Smith <[email protected]>; Ville Voutilainen > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [SG10] A feature macro for mandatory copy elision > > > After a while pondering, the best example I've got to demonstrate a > > need for the feature test macro is something like this: > > > > #ifdef __cpp_mandatory_copy_elision > > > > NoCopyNoMove indirectFactory() { > > return factory(1); // ill-formed prior to C++17 > > } > > #endif > > At this point I gather that no one has an objection to providing a > macro for mandatory copy elision. > > Should SD-6 contain an example like this one? It seems to me that > there ought to be a different definition of indirectFactory under an > #else, but I don't know what it should look like. > > 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
