<p dir="ltr">On 14 Mar 2016 9:11 a.m., "Nelson, Clark" <<a href="mailto:clark.nelson@intel.com">clark.nelson@intel.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > > Finally, I proposed making the new headers from the parallelism TS<br>
> > > consistent with those from the fundamentals TS by adding macros<br>
> > (with<br>
> > > specific values) defined within those headers:<br>
> > ><br>
> > > __cpp_lib_exception_list<br>
> > > __cpp_lib_execution_policy<br>
> ><br>
> > Fine with me. (Why do we need these, again? If there is a new<br>
> > header, isn't the __has_header<> thing enough?)<br>
><br>
> Technically, we don't need them. But the new headers from the fundamentals TS define their own macros, and we should consider consistency.<br>
><br>
> Should we instead delete the macros for the new fundamentals headers:<br>
><br>
> __cpp_lib_optional<br>
> __cpp_lib_any<br>
> __cpp_lib_string_view<br>
> __cpp_lib_memory_resource</p>
<p dir="ltr">I think so.</p>
<p dir="ltr">> Clark<br>
> _______________________________________________<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">http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features</a><br>
</p>