Bump value of __cpp_lib_allocate_at_least for C++23 #6202
Comments
|
Yep, this is a good idea 👍 . We've also done this with other papers in the past too. |
|
That seems reasonable! Could you please send a PR? We will land that in the next draft, together with the review committee feedback. |
jwakely
added a commit
to jwakely/draft
that referenced
this issue
Mar 23, 2023
This is requested for the Tentatively Ready LWG issue 3887. Fixes cplusplus#6202
|
Yes, I agree
…On 3/23/2023 9:25 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
@phalpern <https://github.com/phalpern> - as the author of P2652
<https://wg21.link/p2652> please indicate your support (or not) for this.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#6202 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAHQKY25DQVFS4RWADHWQ7LW5RFLNANCNFSM6AAAAAAWEORYO4>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
jwakely
added a commit
to jwakely/draft
that referenced
this issue
Mar 23, 2023
This is requested for the Tentatively Ready LWG issue 3887. Fixes cplusplus#6202
tkoeppe
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Mar 23, 2023
This is requested for the Tentatively Ready LWG issue 3887. Fixes #6202
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
LWG 3887 wants to increase the value of the
__cpp_lib_allocate_at_leastmacro to distinguish the pre-P2652R0 API from the new one that will be in C++23. LWG voted this Tentatively Ready, but if we follow the usual process that will be approved in Varna, for C++26. There's not much point updating it if we only do so for C++26.I think it can be argued that the value of the macro in the standard is editorial. The standard doesn't say what a given value means, only SD-6 does that.
Would the editor please consider giving the value
202302Lto__cpp_lib_allocate_at_least, and we'll get @brevzin to update SD-6?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: