One minor issue: Libraries that want to do empty-base optimization could reasonably want to use <ins>!</ins>is_final && is_empty if is_final exists, and fall back to just using is_empty otherwise.
Otherwise, this LGTM. For the "removed from C++14" features, are we documenting the former state, or the state of the TS? That is, should [47] say <experimental/optional> now, and should [3.8.1] say experimental/ for <optional> and <dynarray>? On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Nelson, Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > Here is the updated draft, hopefully ready for "formal" publication on > isocpp.org. > > Does anyone have any comment on whether we should publish before or after > the Urbana meeting? Please see the "Formally revising" message I posted > Tuesday for brief discussion. > > I made a few changes we did not discuss in the meeting: > > Fixed the grammar of __has_cpp_attribute, as suggested by Aaron. > > Moved the rationale for __has_include from N3662 (<dynarray>, which is no > longer a C++14 feature) to N3659 (<shared_mutex>, which is). > > Fixed up the HTML somewhat, mainly in the use of <ins> tags. > > -- > Clark Nelson Vice chair, PL22.16 (ANSI C++ standard committee) > Intel Corporation Chair, SG10 (C++ SG for feature-testing) > [email protected] Chair, CPLEX (C SG for parallel language > extensions) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Features mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features > >
_______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
