On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Nelson, Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > I have made a few minor revisions since N4030. > > The redlining in the document is relative to the published SD-6; I think > that's the way we'll want to publish it. But here is what I've changed > recently: > > In response to Ed Smith-Rowland's question about <optional> vs. > <experimental/optional> I updated the __has_include example. Of course it's > just an example, but I think it's more helpful now than it was. > > In response to Walter's question about the "policy" for the C++14 table, I > minimally tweaked the text. :-) > > In response to Richard's question/complaint, I deleted "has" from the macro > names for new features added by LWG issues. > > There are sentences in the rationale section about features removed from > C++14 to a TS; I have changed them from editorial notes to plain old text. > (I don't know what's going to happen with the array extension TS, but it is > still an official project with an official number; hopefully something will > come of it.) > > > This still needs work in three areas: > > 1. We need introductory text and rationale for __has_cpp_attribute. > (Richard?)
I can help with this wording. Also, I had raised a question on 3/29 (Re: On __has_attribute) regarding attribute versioning. There wasn't any discussion that followed (sorry, I should have pinged this), but I would like to see if there's any interest in such a concept. I will resurrect that thread momentarily. ~Aaron _______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
