On 03/24/2015 01:56 AM, Nelson, Clark wrote: > 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?
One more: Should TSes use the macro spelling pattern __cpp_experimental_whatever or __cpp_whatever assuming that the value of the macro will change anyway when a feature moves from TS land to the standard proper? Jens > 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 > _______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
