[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D96577: [libcxx] adds concept `std::uniform_random_bit_generator`

[Mark de Wever via Phabricator via libcxx-commits]

Mordante added inline comments.


================
Comment at: libcxx/include/random:1704
 
+#if _LIBCPP_STD_VER > 17 && defined(__cpp_concepts) && __cpp_concepts >= 201811L
+
----------------
ldionne wrote:
> CaseyCarter wrote:
> > cjdb wrote:
> > > cjdb wrote:
> > > > ldionne wrote:
> > > > > miscco wrote:
> > > > > > in https://reviews.llvm.org/D93166 we have a definition of _LIBCPP_HAS_NO_CONCEPTS
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Should we reuse that globally and why are there different values ofr the macro?
> > > > > > why are there different values ofr the macro?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I don't know. @cjdb do you know what `201907L` vs `201811L` represents for `__cpp_concepts`?
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Should we reuse that globally 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Depending to the answer to the question above, I think it would make sense to use `#if _LIBCPP_STD_VER > 17 && !defined(_LIBCPP_HAS_NO_CONCEPTS)`.
> > > > I believe @Mordante has a patch to fix this globally. As for 201811L vs 201907L, this is consistent with what's in libc++ `<concepts>` right now.
> > > @saar.raz do you know the difference between these two values for `__cpp_concepts`?
> > https://isocpp.org/std/standing-documents/sd-6-sg10-feature-test-recommendations#__cpp_concepts explains the history fairly well.
> > 
> Oh, thanks for the link. @cjdb let's use `201907L ` consistently everywhere if you're OK with that.
I used `201907L` since that's the version used in Clang since @saar.raz's branch has been merged.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D96577/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D96577