[SG10] Jacksonville additions: non-controversial?

Jens Maurer Jens.Maurer at gmx.net
Fri Mar 11 22:58:01 CET 2016


On 03/11/2016 07:59 PM, Nelson, Clark wrote:
> Several of my proposals have attracted no comments so far:
> 
> __cpp_hex_float			NEW
> __cpp_range_based_for		BUMP

Fine with me.

> __cpp_aggregate_bases		NEW

Aggregating bases?  Anyway, absent a better suggestion, fine with me.

> searcher design mistake	no macro

Fine with me.

> I also want to specifically call attention to the hardware interference
> (cache-line) size proposal. The paper proposed:
> 
> __cpp_lib_thread_hardware_interference_size
> 
> But "thread" is not in the name proposed for the library, so it
> shouldn't be in the name of the macro either. (Apparently that was left
> over from the original proposal, in which this was provided by the
> thread class.) I think shortening that name is the obviously correct
> thing to do.

Agreed.

> Finally, I proposed making the new headers from the parallelism TS
> consistent with those from the fundamentals TS by adding macros (with
> specific values) defined within those headers:
> 
> __cpp_lib_exception_list
> __cpp_lib_execution_policy

Fine with me.  (Why do we need these, again?  If there is a new
header, isn't the __has_header<> thing enough?)

Jens



More information about the Features mailing list