On 23 April 2013 15:54, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
>
>> But remember we no longer use __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__ anyway,
>
> yes, this was a great move; kudos to whoever did it.
That was Jason, when he changed the front end to set __cplusp
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> But remember we no longer use __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__ anyway,
yes, this was a great move; kudos to whoever did it.
> we
> check __cplusplus >= 201103L, and so within those chunks we could
> additionally check for some C++14 macro.
Ag
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Gabriel Dos Reis ha scritto:
>
>>There appear to be two targets: C++14 and C++17. Personally, I am
>>inclined
>>to have CXX14 and CXX1Y, where CXX1Y is for the presumed C++17 target.
>
> This clarified - thanks - I'm wondering if it
Hi,
Jonathan Wakely ha scritto:
>But remember we no longer use __GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX0X__ anyway, we
>check __cplusplus >= 201103L, and so within those chunks we could
>additionally check for some C++14 macro.
Right, forgot that. Great. The >= check we have got now makes things much
easier in
On 23 April 2013 15:29, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Gabriel Dos Reis ha scritto:
>
>>There appear to be two targets: C++14 and C++17. Personally, I am
>>inclined
>>to have CXX14 and CXX1Y, where CXX1Y is for the presumed C++17 target.
>
> This clarified - thanks - I'm wondering if it's safe to
Hi again,
Paolo Carlini ha scritto:
>Hi,
>
>Gabriel Dos Reis ha scritto:
>
>>There appear to be two targets: C++14 and C++17. Personally, I am
>>inclined
>>to have CXX14 and CXX1Y, where CXX1Y is for the presumed C++17 target.
>
>This clarified - thanks - I'm wondering if it's safe to assume t
Hi,
Gabriel Dos Reis ha scritto:
>There appear to be two targets: C++14 and C++17. Personally, I am
>inclined
>to have CXX14 and CXX1Y, where CXX1Y is for the presumed C++17 target.
This clarified - thanks - I'm wondering if it's safe to assume that the C++14
library is a superset of the C++1
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 9:01 AM, Piotr Wyderski
wrote:
> Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
>> C++03 was essentially bug fixes to C++98 so we did not make the
>> distinction.
>> C++14 is more than bug fixes to C++11, it contains many new extensions.
>> So I am unsure the situations are similar.
>
> Where c
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Allan Sandfeld Jensen
wrote:
> On Sunday 21 April 2013, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> I'm starting to implement some new library features voted into C++14
>> at the Bristol meeting and am wondering what feature check to use.
>>
>> Will there be a macro like _GXX_EXPERI
On Sunday 21 April 2013, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> I'm starting to implement some new library features voted into C++14
> at the Bristol meeting and am wondering what feature check to use.
>
> Will there be a macro like _GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX1Y__ to correspond to
> -std=c++1y?
>
> Alternatively we
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 12:12 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 21 April 2013 18:05, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Jonathan Wakely ha scritto:
>>
>>>I'm starting to implement some new library features voted into C++14
>>>at the Bristol meeting and am wondering what feature check to use.
>>>
>>>
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Paolo Carlini
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jonathan Wakely ha scritto:
>
>>I'm starting to implement some new library features voted into C++14
>>at the Bristol meeting and am wondering what feature check to use.
>>
>>Will there be a macro like _GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX1Y__ to c
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> I'm starting to implement some new library features voted into C++14
> at the Bristol meeting and am wondering what feature check to use.
>
> Will there be a macro like _GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX1Y__ to correspond to
> -std=c++1y?
>
> Alternativ
Hi,
Jonathan Wakely ha scritto:
>We did, but at the time I was under the incorrect belief that C++14
>would be a TC like C++03. Dietmar and Alisdair both corrected me by
>pointing out it's going to be a new International Standard, not just a
>"bugfix" update to C++11.
Looks like you already ha
On 21 April 2013 18:05, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jonathan Wakely ha scritto:
>
>>I'm starting to implement some new library features voted into C++14
>>at the Bristol meeting and am wondering what feature check to use.
>>
>>Will there be a macro like _GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX1Y__ to correspond t
Hi,
Jonathan Wakely ha scritto:
>I'm starting to implement some new library features voted into C++14
>at the Bristol meeting and am wondering what feature check to use.
>
>Will there be a macro like _GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX1Y__ to correspond to
>-std=c++1y?
Humm, I'm still traveling (and a bit ti
I'm starting to implement some new library features voted into C++14
at the Bristol meeting and am wondering what feature check to use.
Will there be a macro like _GXX_EXPERIMENTAL_CXX1Y__ to correspond to
-std=c++1y?
Alternatively we could set the value of __cplusplus to 201400L but I'm
not sure
17 matches
Mail list logo
