I'm fine with bumping the number
> -----Original Message----- > From: SG10 <[email protected]> On Behalf Of John Spicer via > SG10 > Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 10:41 AM > To: Jonathan Wakely via SG10 <[email protected]> > Cc: John Spicer <[email protected]> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [SG10] P1973R1: what value for the feature test > macro? > > +1 > > > On Mar 4, 2020, at 11:38 AM, Jens Maurer via SG10 <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On 04/03/2020 01.16, Richard Smith via SG10 wrote: > >> > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://wiki.edg.com/pub/Wg21prague/Straw > Polls/P1973R1.pdf__;!!FbZ0ZwI3Qg!- > oDRwFKergMhu9sTHyBLycrBOPsQzVXDi0l_PtqFS0qWv51_sIN5hX_9NoIF$ > renames __cpp_lib_smart_ptr_default_init to > __cpp_lib_smart_ptr_for_overwrite but includes no instruction to change > the number. Normally the number in a feature test macro indicates the > adoption date of the most recent proposal affecting that feature. > >> > >> What does SG10 want? Should the number be bumped to 202002L or left > as 201811L despite referring to things that didn't exist until this most > recent > meeting? My inclination is to bump the number; I don't see any reason to not > do so. > >> > >> Preferences? > > > > Bump the number. > > > > Jens > > > > > > -- > > SG10 mailing list > > [email protected] > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg > 10__;!!FbZ0ZwI3Qg!- > oDRwFKergMhu9sTHyBLycrBOPsQzVXDi0l_PtqFS0qWv51_sIN5hYzKzoUP$ > > -- > SG10 mailing list > [email protected] > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg > 10__;!!FbZ0ZwI3Qg!- > oDRwFKergMhu9sTHyBLycrBOPsQzVXDi0l_PtqFS0qWv51_sIN5hYzKzoUP$ -- SG10 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg10
