[SG10] Where SG10 and SD-6 should go from here

Jens Maurer Jens.Maurer at gmx.net
Sun Oct 14 22:26:21 CEST 2018


On 10/14/2018 08:01 PM, John Spicer wrote:
> There have been some questions about what role, if any, SG10 should have now that feature test macros are in the IS.
> 
> My personal opinion is that there would be some value in maintaining SD-6 going forward so that we could have in one document a complete picture of the macro names and their values.
> 
> For example, if you look in the current working draft, it says that the value of _cpp_constexpr should be 201603L.
> 
> SD-6 provides the additional guidance that in C++14, it should be 201304, and in C++11 it should be 200704.
> 
> It is also possible that new language features could have more than one value during the production of a given standard cycle.
> 
> Perhaps we should have a short meeting in San Diego to discuss this?

I'd suggest to meet Tuesday over lunch.  Last I heard, we have sponsored
lunch at the hotel, so we should quickly find a spot to sit down.

Meeting during regular meeting hours would likely deprive CWG of quorum.

Jens


More information about the Features mailing list