June 15 works for me ~Aaron
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Nelson, Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > SG10 met at the Overland Park Marriott at 7:30 PM on 2015-05-05. > > Attending: > Clark Nelson (chair) > Walter Brown > Jens Maurer > John Spicer > Richard Smith > Jared Hoberock > > We decided to add an annex to SD-6, containing model text, for inclusion in > a Technical Specification, to describe feature-test macros. (Jared was in > attendance to make sure there would be no issues with respect to the > Concurrency TS.) The result is included in the attached draft. > > AI: Clark to try to get the Concepts TS to go along with this direction. > > We decided that SD-6 should include information about feature-test macros > defined in Technical Specifications, so that there would be a single place > where information about all the macros would be available. The plan is to > incorporate that information once a TS is finalized, but that a test macro > should be specified in a PDTS. > > AI: Clark to incorporate macros from the four TSes that have been or are > being finalized (not in the attached draft). > > We agreed that the argument to __has_cpp_attribute should be subject to > macro expansion, and that, lacking any specific statement to the contrary, > it is already specified to be so. > > Primarily with mathematical special functions in mind, there was some > discussion of what to do about conditionally-supported features. In the > attached draft I have resurrected (as an editorial note) the table that I > wrote oh so long ago, for people to consider again. (Although in light of > later events, this might not be too interesting.) > > We reviewed the proposed changes to the C++14 table; no concerns were > raised. > > We briefly considered what to do about C++11. As an interim step, the > consensus seemed to be not to add anything new at this time; the additions > have been removed from the attached draft. For an ultimate decision, it was > considered necessary to understand Microsoft's plans with respect to SD-6. > > AI: Clark to query Microsoft and report back. > > Also, there was talk about adding an index for all the macro names. > > AI: Clark to work on an index. > > Following up from the meeting: > > Naturally, new changes were approved at this meeting, for which I have > already added rationale stubs. For each of these, I am soliciting a > contribution of either an example of how a macro could be used or an > explanation of why a macro wouldn't be useful. (I think I can handle N4366 > by myself. :-) > > Richard pointed out an example he posted on the wiki for N4268. I have > incorporated it in the attached draft -- along with an editorial note > raising the question of the usefulness of the technique and the macro. > > After consultation with James Dennett, I have also included rationale for > why a macro for N3922 wouldn't be justified. > > Coming into Lenexa, those were the last two C++17 changes that were missing > rationale. I'd like everyone to take one more critical look at everything in > section 4.2, to see if there's anything you find questionable. Once we're > sure we like all the rationale for what macros should and shouldn't be > defined, we then need to go back through the table to settle the exact > names. > > We should probably hold a teleconference for that. Would the usual time slot > on June 15 be good? > > -- > 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
