On 9 October 2017 at 17:10, Nelson, Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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? > > Yes, I was going to suggest "guaranteed". > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
