I reviewed the reflector traffic since Urbana, and (re)discovered a couple of questions that should perhaps be added to the agenda:
There is a question whether descriptions of feature-test macros from TSes should also be duplicated or summarized in SD-6. That is not something we have done so far, and my personal inclination is to say that we probably shouldn't, but I don't remember SG10 ever discussing the question before. Should the argument to __has_cpp_attribute be expanded by the preprocessor? Clark > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:features-bounces@open- > std.org] On Behalf Of Nelson, Clark > Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 10:24 AM > To: [email protected] ([email protected]) > Subject: [SG10] Meeting 04-06 > > I'd like for SG10 to meet Monday, April 6. > > The only changes I have made to the document since February were > to add > editor notes (yellow) to the rationale section for C++17 > indicating > changes for which we intend to recommend no macro; capturing our > justifications for these decisions is particularly important, in > my view. > Explicit justification would also be necessary for changes to > recommendations we previously published for C++14. > > Meeting specifics: > Monday, April 6, 2015 > 10:00 am | Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco, GMT-07:00) | > 2 hrs > http://www.open-std.org/pipermail/features/2015-March/000303.html > > Agenda: > > There are about a half-dozen entries in the C++17 table where more > than one > name has been proposed, or where some other question exists. We > need to > reach consensus on all of those. And of course there's no harm in > everyone > taking another look at all the other entries, to make sure we have > those > right as well. > > There are a couple of proposed changes to the recommendations for > C++14. > We need to make sure the consensus is that those changes are > really > justified. > > Then there's the whole question of what we should do about C++11, > including > whether we already went too far when SD-6 was revised at the end > of the > year. For specifics, see: > > https://isocpp.org/std/standing-documents/sd-6-sg10-feature-test- > recommendations#recs.cpp11 > > The new entries, for which we didn't specifically consider the > rationale, > are the underlined ones: range-based for, specific attributes, and > everything in the table from initializer lists on. > > -- > Clark Nelson 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
