Please don't forget about Monday's meeting. I have posted a more complete agenda and a new revision of SD-6 on the SG10 wiki page for Lenexa:
http://wiki.edg.com/twiki/bin/view/Wg21lenexa/SG10 If you plan to attend the meeting, please let me know privately. Clark > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:features-bounces@open- > std.org] On Behalf Of Nelson, Clark > Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 5:57 PM > To: [email protected] ([email protected]) > Subject: Re: [SG10] Meeting 04-06 > > 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 _______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
