Jonathan Wakely

> Similar issue emerged with boost (here #2355) before, but I'm not sure if libstdc++ would implement similar fix. No, absolutely not. That is not an option for libstdc++ because...

> Well, as pointed in the original post, there is a long double overload in the C++ standard. And it is present in the standard regardless of the system/compiler. Yes,...

I think an LWG issue is warranted, since we have two reasonable but conflicting interpretations of the standard.

This doesn't seem like a problem with Boost, you should contact Ubuntu. > the problem seems to be near like in redhat #178 Wrong issue number?

You can define it in a translation unit compiled with C++17 (or earlier) where it's not a keyword, and make it an alias to the new name. Or just make...

No, maybe I'll create one tomorrow though

In theory the `__cpp_lib_uncaught_exceptions` feature test macro should tell you if the newer `std::uncaught_exceptions()` is available. The current MSVC STL does define that.

> I think an LWG issue is warranted, since we have two reasonable but conflicting interpretations of the standard. Actually I think I'll add a comment to https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3081

> But functions names alignment is so nice. :pinched_fingers: You don't need trailing return types for that. ```c++ int foo1(); double foo2(); std::shared_ptr foo3(); Point2D foo4(); std::unique_ptr foo5(); ```

> if the caller is using `auto` as the return type and trying to use type hinting to suggest what `auto` will be Why would anybody be trying to use...