On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 at 19:27, Barry Revzin via SG10 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Do you have an example of code that would benefit from such detection? > And what is the alternative code that you'd use in the #else branch? If the alternative has equivalent semantics and performance, we don't need a macro. > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: William M. (Mike) Miller <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 1:25 PM > Subject: Fwd: New issue: auto(x) should have a feature-testing macro > To: Barry Revzin <[email protected]> > Cc: Zhihao Yuan <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> > > > This suggestion should be decided by SG10 rather than being > handled as a core language issue, so I'm forwarding it to the > SG10 chair for consideration. Thanks. > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: New issue: auto(x) should have a feature-testing macro > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 02:48:12 +0000 > From: Zhihao Yuan <[email protected]> > Reply-To: Zhihao Yuan <[email protected]> > To: William M. \(Mike\) Miller <[email protected]> > CC: 'Arthur O'Dwyer' <[email protected]> > > It's hard to detect whether it is legal to > do auto(expr) after adopting P0849R8; > A feature testing macro would help. > > There was no __cpp_auto (unlike > __cpp_decltype_auto), but the direction > of evolving auto(x) is probably not > necessarily tied to `auto` in a > declaration. > > Proposed resolution: > > This wording is relative to N4901. > > Add an entry to [tab:cpp.predefined.ft] > > Table 21: Feature-test macros > > | Macro name | Value | > | -------- | ------- || <ins>__cpp_auto_cast</ins> | 202110L | > > -- > Zhihao Yuan, ID lichray > > The best way to predict the future is to invent it. > > _______________________________________________ > -- > SG10 mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg10 >
-- SG10 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg10
