On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 04/24/2013 12:48 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Jason Merrill <ja...@redhat.com> 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. > > Jason >
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. -- Gaby
