<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 9 October 2017 at 17:10, Nelson, Clark <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:clark.nelson@intel.com" target="_blank">clark.nelson@intel.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Perhaps I should also ask: should the name of the macro use the word "mandatory", or would "guaranteed" (as from the original document title) be better?<br>
<span class="im HOEnZb"><br></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, I was going to suggest "guaranteed".</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="im HOEnZb">
Clark<br>
<br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: <a href="mailto:features-bounces@open-std.org">features-bounces@open-std.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:features-bounces@open-">features-bounces@open-</a><br>
</span><span class="im HOEnZb">> <a href="http://std.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">std.org</a>] On Behalf Of Nelson, Clark<br>
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 09:09<br>
> To: Richard Smith <<a href="mailto:richard@metafoo.co.uk">richard@metafoo.co.uk</a>>; Ville Voutilainen<br>
> <<a href="mailto:ville.voutilainen@gmail.com">ville.voutilainen@gmail.com</a>><br>
> Cc: <a href="mailto:features@isocpp.open-std.org">features@isocpp.open-std.org</a> <<a href="mailto:Features@open-std.org">Features@open-std.org</a>><br>
</span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> Subject: Re: [SG10] A feature macro for mandatory copy elision<br>
><br>
> > After a while pondering, the best example I've got to demonstrate a<br>
> > need for the feature test macro is something like this:<br>
> ><br>
> > #ifdef __cpp_mandatory_copy_elision<br>
> ><br>
> > NoCopyNoMove indirectFactory() {<br>
> > return factory(1); // ill-formed prior to C++17<br>
> > }<br>
> > #endif<br>
><br>
> At this point I gather that no one has an objection to providing a<br>
> macro for mandatory copy elision.<br>
><br>
> Should SD-6 contain an example like this one? It seems to me that<br>
> there ought to be a different definition of indirectFactory under an<br>
> #else, but I don't know what it should look like.<br>
><br>
> Clark<br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> Features mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Features@isocpp.open-std.org">Features@isocpp.open-std.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.open-std.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/features</a><br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Features mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Features@isocpp.open-std.org">Features@isocpp.open-std.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.open-std.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/features</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>