220 19292 <4897684.zJq850IzGK@tjmaciei-mobl4> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thiago Macieira Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Testing for supported features: Per-feature macros? Sentinel compilation? Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 18:17:35 -0700 Lines: 37 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <4897684.zJq850IzGK@tjmaciei-mobl4> References: <1720943.XpK8Tt98Hf@tjmaciei-mobl4> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1437959866 12693 80.91.229.3 (27 Jul 2015 01:17:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 01:17:46 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals To: denis bider Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCB4TK757YBRBNEN22WQKGQEMZVZEKY@isocpp.org Mon Jul 27 03:17:41 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-lb0-f200.google.com ([209.85.217.200]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZJX2z-0000t6-Mx for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Mon, 27 Jul 2015 03:17:41 +0200 Original-Received: by lbcjj5 with SMTP id jj5sf22338438lbc.1 for ; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 18:17:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=stl3WXLN2s5a1FWkasGgGgTEENvVeVsiGy0sU8XYnb8=; b=O4WynkIl227HCnxEH3Zuzrn8OpdIZ9MDGQd1Xld7mseM6tnfxb2bjNMKUbxP80NDy8 RIb1Ldr6h9EJxGq7QUpK7dlAaoxgQ6Iwf1Lkqzv17fw9lS9Xb213l8Kod2m7Ur0PVQgW ofjFwNBRqh9DpijsEZwMqjdCb5VZsFsMz9IA3r7wb9ORHaH/8i9ie6X0qPLyf02WfQNs nsdRSjxs9P0JIQby7WErt3qALNj5MLOQykuFZFX00emje5f48puNRuiY75CoeIYO7izY HH0Ea+d2JT9g3AbXwNXhtqF71Q+yQUzk0G74ua7D7+SbrvYjQZFD0IdvHf1exD+Pqb6V YW X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlWpDRU2R20mJFWXWh09CUyq3lGB3afSWpOSSvUlWNbybNIo6bx0VwWVr7UJ3lTif3Hccus X-Received: by 10.181.13.202 with SMTP id fa10mr4286350wid.4.1437959860849; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 18:17:40 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.180.92.34 with SMTP id cj2ls530207wib.1.canary; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 18:17:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.79.10 with SMTP id f10mr19231888wix.1.1437959859638; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 18:17:39 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from gondolin.macieira.info (gondolin.macieira.info. [2a01:4f8:d13:f81:21c:14ff:fe01:12a3]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id 18si28018467wjs.134.2015.07.26.18.17.39 for ; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 18:17:39 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of thiago@macieira.org designates 2a01:4f8:d13:f81:21c:14ff:fe01:12a3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a01:4f8:d13:f81:21c:14ff:fe01:12a3; Original-Received: from tjmaciei-mobl4.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2601:1c0:5803:81c9:a88d:786e:676b:dda3]) by gondolin.macieira.info (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C56DE11B4F8; Sun, 26 Jul 2015 18:17:38 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: KMail/4.14.9 (Linux/4.0.5-3-desktop; KDE/4.14.9; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: thiago@macieira.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of thiago@macieira.org designates 2a01:4f8:d13:f81:21c:14ff:fe01:12a3 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=thiago@macieira.org Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Spam-Checked-In-Group: std-proposals@isocpp.org X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:19292 Archived-At: On Sunday 26 July 2015 18:03:16 denis bider wrote: > Maintaining that registry, now and forever in the future, does not seem > like a bureaucracy to you? Yes, it is. But it's something readily accessible now, which is more than any other alternatives. > It's extra work for language maintainers; it isn't general; and it doesn't > provide a way to test for differences in compiler implementations. True, but there shouldn't be differences in compiler implementations. Different revisions of a feature can be marked by different dates on the feature macro, such as __cpp_constexpr has done. Compiler bugs should be fixed. And besides, you can't test for all compiler bugs this way. > > Sentinel compilation would imply a major feature to the language. > > You can already do that with a configure script, if you want, though. > > That opens a whole other can of worms, which sentinel compilation would > make it easy to avoid. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint: E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358 -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/. .