We already have one: https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3750
On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 6:46 AM Thomas Köppe via Lib <[email protected]> wrote: > OK, thanks! Who's going to file the issue? :-) > > On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 12:28, Ville Voutilainen < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. :) >> > _______________________________________________ > Lib mailing list > [email protected] > Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/lib > Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/lib/2022/09/23610.php >
-- SG10 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg10
