This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C++ Patch] Add __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX1Y__
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 13:07:18 -0500
- Subject: Re: [C++ Patch] Add __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX1Y__
- References: <5177EF87 dot 4000003 at oracle dot com> <517807C4 dot 3060704 at redhat dot com> <CAAiZkiB2gXHTzxiYT0khkHXsL0m68Rp4Jm4HLdNYj+=X6VKXxA at mail dot gmail dot com> <51780E92 dot 5010904 at redhat dot com>
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Jason Merrill <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 04/24/2013 12:48 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Jason Merrill <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> I would really rather avoid introducing another macro to be removed again
>>> later. Instead, let's use a value of __cplusplus greater than 201103L,
>>> perhaps 201300?
>> yes, that makes sense, and even a better path forward.
>> Hopefully, the next committee draft will have that value.
> We won't have a value for the next standard until we have a next standard,
> so let's just invent a value for now; presumably people will know better
> than to check for that invented value specifically.
We can always try to convince the project editor to honor a tradition
from the past where the editor would set the value of __cplusplus
to a value that reflect the approval date of a working draft. This is purely
editorial and he could exercise that discretion to help implementor
do the right thing. That way, we don't have to way to have
a standard. Of course, programmers should not test for equality
of that value.