On 10/08/2014 12:09 PM, Nelson, Clark wrote: >> C++98 looks like it's still a stub - I didn't see anything there - >> did >> you forget something? > What I forgot to do was save the file one last time before I attached it to > the message. [head-slap] This is more like what I meant to send yesterday. > >> I think C++11 is no longer a stub - it's done. > OK, thanks. I think it's safe to say it's not a stub, even if there is a > possibility that we may yet add something else. > >> I was looking at the things moved out of C++14 into a TS. I agree >> we >> need to explain that they were moved out of C++ but we're keeping >> the >> macros. > It probably would be worth adding some explanation of the purpose of that > table. I have taken a stab at it; feedback welcome. > >> It will also be necessary I think to add tables for each >> TS and >> track them (which means, for example, <optional> would appear in >> the >> 'moved out of C++14' table and also be in the future 'Fundamentals >> TS' >> table). Obviously that's not happening this go-round. > I'm not entirely sure that's what we would want to do even if we had time -- > which we definitely do not. > > Clark Greetings,
I was wondering if we got any feedback from the last meeting on these or any other SD-6 ideas? I was just hoping to make sure I have the latest as we finish up gcc-5 at my end. Ed _______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
