> > Furthermore, since we usually are in the business of standardizing > > things that users otherwise have to write many times themselves: Has > > SG10 considered actively defining a <std-forward-compat> header > > library that does the above for all the things it can, the idea being > > that users who have to target multiple implementations at various > > stages of conformance can include <std-forward-compat> after all their > > standard library's own headers and write their code more closely > > against the actual latest IS's std:: library, > > without having to reinvent the above by hand (incompatibly on > > different systems), as a transition tool to help encourage people to > > adopt the latest standard? > > That's a very interesting idea, but might it make more sense for it to be done > by LWG, as opposed to SG10?
Whoever owns the feature tests should own how to use and adopt them so I would think the <std-forward-compat> header would fall under that. After all, it should be kept in sync with the feature tests. So initially to get the ball rolling, since we have a set of tests already that are maintained by SG10, wouldn't it be expected that the initial header to be created by SG10 too -- again, just to get the ball rolling? Going forward, if we standardize feature tests, then we will presumably expect each proposal author to suggest a feature test (where appropriate) and a <std-forward-compat> mechanism (if appropriate). Is that reasonable? _______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
