On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 at 12:28, Giuseppe D'Angelo <giuseppe.dang...@kdab.com> 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 know that 202302 is the real > > value to identify that this is "something later than C++23" whereas > > 202400 is more obvious. > > Good point! New patch attached.
Thanks, I'll push this.
