<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:26 AM, Jens Maurer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Jens.Maurer@gmx.net" target="_blank">Jens.Maurer@gmx.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 02/03/2015 01:35 AM, Nelson, Clark wrote:<br>
> Here is an updated document. I have added __cpp_noexcept as Ed proposed, and<br>
> __cpp_forward_decl_enum, as he appears to have proposed. Ed didn't seem to<br>
> make any other positive proposals, but I received an independent suggestion<br>
> about explicit conversion operators, so I have added it as well.<br>
<br>
</span>We did quite a bit of surgery to enumerations in C++11,<br>
e.g. we can now have explicit base types and scoping etc.<br>
<br>
I'm wondering why we're highlighting the "forward declaration"<br>
part, as opposed to just "__cpp_extended_enum" or simply<br>
"__cpp_enum", with suitably-changing values?</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm in two minds about this: by putting all the changes under the same name, we present a problem to implementations who implement only part of the new rules: they can't bump the version of their __cpp_enum macro until they implement the whole lot. But I do like avoiding the proliferation of macros tracking tiny changes, so if we don't anticipate any implementations in that state, then I'd prefer the more general macro name.</div></div></div></div>