On Wed, 7 Sept 2022, 12:54 Tim Song, <[email protected]> wrote: > We already have one: https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3750 >
Ah, great! I'll bow out then, thank you! 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
