<p dir="ltr">On 16 Mar 2016 6:14 p.m., "Nelson, Clark" <<a href="mailto:clark.nelson@intel.com">clark.nelson@intel.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > On 03/14/2016 07:19 PM, Nelson, Clark wrote:<br>
> > > The only question that doesn't seem to have been settled yet is<br>
> > the<br>
> > > name of the macro for this-capture. The contenders seem to be:<br>
> > ><br>
> > > __cpp_capture_this<br>
> > > __cpp_capture_star_this<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Different people have spoken in favor of each. Let the argument<br>
> > begin<br>
> > > in earnest.<br>
> ><br>
> > It seems to me that _star_this is clearer, since we could already<br>
> > capture 'this'.<br>
><br>
> Hmm. I was expecting rather more traffic on this topic. In particular,<br>
> John seemed to have a distinct preference, with rationale, for the<br>
> shorter, simpler name.<br>
><br>
> Does no one else have a preference?</p>
<p dir="ltr">I'm fine with _star_this. The _this form seems odd, since we could always capture this.</p>
<p dir="ltr">> > I haven't noticed discussion of the enum class change. Perhaps<br>
> > __cpp_enum_class_init?<br>
><br>
> No, it wasn't discussed on the reflector, but the document does have<br>
> my rationale for omitting it. Is it flawed?</p>
<p dir="ltr">It seems right to me. If you want to cope with older compilers, use a cast rather than list-initialization.</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>