On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 04/24/2013 12:48 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>>
>>> I would really rather avoid introducing another macro to be removed again
>>> later. Instead, let's use a value of __cplus
Hi,
On 04/24/2013 06:55 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 04/24/2013 12:48 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Jason Merrill
wrote:
I would really rather avoid introducing another macro to be removed
again
later. Instead, let's use a value of __cplusplus greater than 201
On 04/24/2013 12:48 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Jason Merrill 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 e
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Jason Merrill 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?
>
> Jason
yes, that makes sense, and even a better path forward.
Hopefully
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?
Jason
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I believe this is all we need in order to get the ball rolling in the
> library for -std=c++1y.
>
> If we think it's conceptually clearer (no difference in practice, because
> cxx11 == cxx0x), for the legacy C++0x macro we could also
Hi,
I believe this is all we need in order to get the ball rolling in the
library for -std=c++1y.
If we think it's conceptually clearer (no difference in practice,
because cxx11 == cxx0x), for the legacy C++0x macro we could also do:
if (cxx_dialect >= cxx0x && cxx_dialect < cxx1y)
