P0859R0 was implemented in VS 2022 17.1

[fsb4000]

Could you recheck the change please? @cdacamar told me that the feature is implemented if I understood correctly.
If not then I will change the same line at https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/compiler_support/20 to partial.

[prmerger-automator]

@fsb4000 : Thanks for your contribution! The author(s) have been notified to review your proposed change.

[learn-build-service-prod]

Learn Build status updates of commit 6361e94:

✅ Validation status: passed

File	Status	Preview URL	Details
docs/overview/visual-cpp-language-conformance.md	✅Succeeded

For more details, please refer to the build report.

For any questions, please:

• Try searching the learn.microsoft.com contributor guides
• Post your question in the Learn support channel

[fsb4000]

@CaseyCarter wrote: "It looks like the work item (VSO-977249) has been "In Progress" since 2021. From the discussion, I get the impression that it's mostly complete. Maybe C++14 support (this was a DR) is not all there? It's not clear to me. For cppreference purposes, I think the fact that we don't define the feature-test macro (https://godbolt.org/z/xcbrv1964) decidedly means we should not claim support."

And I changed the cppreference line to partial. But @TylerMSFT , could you recheck the current status of P0859R0 in MSVC?

[cdacamar]

And I changed the cppreference line to partial. But @TylerMSFT , could you recheck the current status of P0859R0 in MSVC?

Could you please revert that? The compiler implementation has been in place since 2021 and supported by (8e97889d258fefe25a9357e1852167832e4b6c37. The feature test macro was never part of the original DR: P0859R0 and appeared to be added editorially later.

Speaking to why the work item is not complete: internally we used these items known as "UserStory" items to track all of the C++20 work, many of them were not marked as completed due to the automated system (Azure DevOps) being incapable of moving UserStory items -> complete, so many of them are still marked as "In Progress" due to them not being user-visible.

[fsb4000]

Could you please revert that?

Sure, I'll do.

[Court72]

@TylerMSFT

Can you review the proposed changes?

Important: When the changes are ready for publication, adding a #sign-off comment is the best way to signal that the PR is ready for the review team to merge.

#label:"aq-pr-triaged"
@MicrosoftDocs/public-repo-pr-review-team

[TylerMSFT]

My take from the discussion above is that this change to the docs shouldn't go in. Correct?

[CaseyCarter]

My take from the discussion above is that this change to the docs shouldn't go in. Correct?

Yes. There was confusion that I contributed to which Cameron corrected. The change is good.

[TylerMSFT]

#sign-off