On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 at 12:28, Giuseppe D'Angelo
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 08/01/2025 13:06, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > I agree with using 202400L, for consistency with the actual defined
> > value, and because at a quick glance it's unclear whether 202303 is
> > the value for C++23 or not. You have to
Hi,
On 08/01/2025 13:06, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I agree with using 202400L, for consistency with the actual defined
value, and because at a quick glance it's unclear whether 202303 is
the value for C++23 or not. You have to know that 202302 is the real
value to identify that this is "something l
