On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Nelson, Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> Apologies, especially to Ed, for the long silence. > > Here is an updated document. I have added __cpp_noexcept as Ed proposed, > and > __cpp_forward_decl_enum, as he appears to have proposed. Ed didn't seem to > make any other positive proposals, but I received an independent suggestion > about explicit conversion operators, so I have added it as well. > I note you've added __cpp_lib_removed_* macros for removing library features; I thought the prevailing direction was that we didn't need them (code should be saying "is there a unique_ptr? if so, use it, otherwise use auto_ptr" or similar). Did we reverse that direction, or are these here just for consideration / reference? I have a slight preference for __cpp_explicit_conversion getting a trailing 's'. > I also received a correction from Agustin Berge about the location > (subclause and header) of __cpp_lib_result_of_sfinae (C++14). The previous > location really was just flat-out wrong -- mea culpa. I'm very interested > in > knowing whether any implementer actually went to the trouble to implement > the published recommendation in an unrelated header. If not, maybe we can > just treat this as an erratum and move on. > > We seem to be getting diminishing returns of feedback from the reflector, > so > I think we're approaching a point where we should have a teleconference to > try to get stuff settled. > > >From my perspective, our next opportunity to meet would be February 23, > but > there's a LWG meeting in Germany that week. Is there anyone who might > attend > SG10 who will be attending that instead? > > If that day wouldn't be good, then we're probably looking at either March 9 > (a Canadian holiday) or 23. I think either of these dates works for me.
_______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
