On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Nelson, Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Maybe it doesn't matter for the purposes of SD-6, but for P0220R1 > > the shared_ptr changes for arrays were approved in Jacksonville, but > > are not in the CD due to editorial conflicts. P0414R0 aims to > > correct that. > > > > Similarly, P0067R3 was approved in Oulu, but isn't in the CD because > > the editor noticed inconsistencies in the wording which mean it > > needs to be revised and go through LWG again. > > > > If those features do make it back into the WP in time for C++17 the > > date 201603 might not make sense for their macros. On the other hand > > maybe it does still make sense, as the substance of the proposals > > will still be what was voted on in Jacksonville and Oulu > > respectively. > > Hmm. Thanks for pointing these out. > > For P0067R3, which wasn't applied to the WD at all, the interesting > question will be when and how R4 (or successor) makes it into the WD. > If it's voted in at a subsequent meeting, we should probably use the date > of > that vote. But if the changes relative to R3 are considered to be > editorial, > there might conceivably not be another WG21 vote, in which case we should > use the Oulu date. (But in either case, are we really going to try adding > it > to C++17 after the CD goes out?) > IIUC, there will be at least one NB comment requesting we do so, since it only missed the CD due to a wording oversight. Having looked at R4, I don't think I'm likely to consider the difference to be editorial, so (assuming that LWG doesn't say no to the NB comment) there should be a full committee motion to adopt the fixed wording. All the same considerations apply to P0220R1, but it's even a little more > complicated because it was only part of the paper. > > For the time being, I'm inclined to omit the row for P0067; I can always > resurrect it later. > Sounds good to me. For P0220, because of the complications of the row-spanning in the table, > I'd kind of rather not try to branch-predict. I think I'll touch base with > Herb about his expectations. > > Clark > _______________________________________________ > 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
