On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 14:17, Thomas Köppe via SG10 <[email protected]> wrote: > > Aha, thanks -- yes, if the macros are normative, then it might indeed be best > if we resolve this four-fold value bump collision with an LWG issue that > captures the discussion.
They seem plenty normative to me, or that has least been the intent. The standard requires the presence and values of a set of macros, and they affect the meaning of portable programs written against a particular standard. Sure, the phrasing in [version.syn]/1, "The header <version> supplies implementation-dependent information about the C ++ standard library (e.g.,version number and release date)." is a bit funny, because there shouldn't be anything implementation-dependent about the macros and their values. Luckily, "implementation-dependent" is not a Term of Power. :) -- SG10 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg10
