<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">“core” was one of the alternatives I suggested to LWG, but they didn’t find that better than “lang”, so I went with their suggestion of “impl”.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">John.</div><br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 9, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Hubert Tong &lt;<a href="mailto:hubert.reinterpretcast@gmail.com" class="">hubert.reinterpretcast@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class="">Would it be wrong to replace "impl" with "core"?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-- HT<br class=""></div></div><br class=""><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="">On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 11:39 AM John Spicer &lt;<a href="mailto:jhs@edg.com" class="">jhs@edg.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br class=""></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">On Tuesday we discussed a few feature test macros that we want added at this meeting.<br class="">
<br class="">
At our lunch meeting, we suggested that the language one be named specially because for these features end-users need to test the library one to know if they have both the language feature and the library facility needed to use it.&nbsp; &nbsp;The language macro is primarily of use to library implementors. <br class="">
<br class="">
__cpp_lang_destroying_delete<br class="">
__cpp_destroying_delete<br class="">
__cpp_lang_destroying_delete<br class="">
__cpp_destroying_delete<br class="">
<br class="">
LWG did not like this approach.&nbsp; &nbsp;They want all library macros, which require a header to be included before they can be used, to begin with “__cpp_lib”.&nbsp; &nbsp;They also found “lang” no be insufficiently clear as a way to suggest that end-users should not use that macro.<br class="">
<br class="">
LWG would like to use:<br class="">
<br class="">
__cpp_impl_destroying_delete<br class="">
__cpp_lib_destroying_delete<br class="">
<br class="">
__cpp_impl_destroying_delete<br class="">
__cpp_lib_destroying_delete<br class="">
<br class="">
These changes are okay with me. <br class="">
<br class="">
What do you think of them?<br class="">
<br class="">
The paper that describes the changes is available here:<br class="">
<br class="">
<a href="http://wiki.edg.com/pub/Wg21sandiego2018/CoreWorkingGroup/d1353r0.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">http://wiki.edg.com/pub/Wg21sandiego2018/CoreWorkingGroup/d1353r0.html</a><br class="">
<br class="">
John.<br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
Features mailing list<br class="">
<a href="mailto:Features@isocpp.open-std.org" target="_blank" class="">Features@isocpp.open-std.org</a><br class="">
<a href="http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features</a><br class="">
</blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>