I believe these are meaningful as base values assuming an implementation is far enough along to set __cpp_concepts, covering `concept` versus `concept bool` and the atomic constraint matching through location + parameter mapping.
__cpp_concepts: 201507 (TS) or 201707 (P0734). __cpp_requires_expr: 201507 (TS) or 201611 (P0266). __cpp_compound_req: 201507 (TS) or 201707 (P0734) or 201811 (P1084). Only 201507 allows placeholder types. __cpp_concept_placeholders: 201507 (TS) or 201811 (P1141). On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 4:26 PM John Spicer <[email protected]> wrote: > [ Dropping core reflector ] > > Do you have a recommendation? > > John. > > On Mar 1, 2019, at 12:03 PM, Hubert Tong <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I'm still hoping for some SG10 guidance on whether we want to query on > what -> *Concept* does separately from whether *Concept* auto is > available. There is also static_assert(C<T>) in the mix somewhere. > > -- HT > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 8:45 AM John Spicer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> That seems appropriate to me (copying the core reflector). >> >> John. >> >> > On Mar 1, 2019, at 7:21 AM, Jonathan Wakely <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > The working draft doesn't specify a __cpp_concepts macro. I want to >> know if I need to say "concept bool" or just "concept", so I expected to be >> able to do: >> > >> > #if __cpp_concepts >> > template<typename T> >> > concept >> > #if __cpp_concepts <= 201507 >> > bool >> > #endif >> > Foo = ...; >> > #endif >> > >> > Should this be handled by a core issue? >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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
