On 09/15/2014 05:17 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi again,
On 08/26/2014 10:54 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Hi,
On 08/26/2014 10:52 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
That seems like a good idea, but I'm not convinced there's any benefit
in Ed's changes to do:
-#if __cplusplus > 201103L
+#if __cplusplus >= 201402L
It seems like unnecessary churn to me,
about this, I had the same thought ;)
By the way, in case isn't already clear, it occurs to me that the kind
of change proposed by Ed, thus standardize on __cplusplus >= "required
version", will make more sense when the C++17 Standard will be closer.
So far, since we can simply do everything with only 201103L, my idea
too of adding _GLIBCXX_CXX11 & co seems quite pointless.
Paolo.
I understand. I guess I was looking far ahead through the eyes of some
new maintainer where we have CXX11, CXX14, CXX17, CXX20, ... and after
the experimental names Cxx0x, Cxx1y had long lost their meaning and
thinking that these dates and names would be a jumble. As new library
components come into std:: proper we should look at straightening that
out and standardizing on something. For now, one date works well.
The new libraries are safely tucked away in experimental behind
#if __cplusplus <= 201103L
# include <bits/c++14_warning.h>
#else
*** Jonathan: <filesystem> uses:
#if __cplusplus < 201103L
# include <bits/c++0x_warning.h>
#else
and should probably eventually be like the others.
Ed
