<p dir="ltr">On 14 Mar 2016 9:11 a.m., &quot;Nelson, Clark&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:clark.nelson@intel.com">clark.nelson@intel.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; Finally, I proposed making the new headers from the parallelism TS<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; consistent with those from the fundamentals TS by adding macros<br>
&gt; &gt; (with<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; specific values) defined within those headers:<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; __cpp_lib_exception_list<br>
&gt; &gt; &gt; __cpp_lib_execution_policy<br>
&gt; &gt;<br>
&gt; &gt; Fine with me.  (Why do we need these, again?  If there is a new<br>
&gt; &gt; header, isn&#39;t the __has_header&lt;&gt; thing enough?)<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Technically, we don&#39;t need them. But the new headers from the fundamentals TS define their own macros, and we should consider consistency.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Should we instead delete the macros for the new fundamentals headers:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; __cpp_lib_optional<br>
&gt; __cpp_lib_any<br>
&gt; __cpp_lib_string_view<br>
&gt; __cpp_lib_memory_resource</p>
<p dir="ltr">I think so.</p>
<p dir="ltr">&gt; Clark<br>
&gt; _______________________________________________<br>
&gt; Features mailing list<br>
&gt; <a href="mailto:Features@isocpp.open-std.org">Features@isocpp.open-std.org</a><br>
&gt; <a href="http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features">http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features</a><br>
</p>