Sounds good to me! John.
> On Jun 12, 2019, at 5:03 PM, Jonathan Wakely <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 21:50, John Spicer <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > The process for fixing things like this is not well defined right now. > > In general, the feature test stuff is supposed to be part of the CWG/LWG > process. > > For fixing things that were missed earlier, I did a paper for a few of those > recently. > > How would folks like this handled? It could be an LWG issue, or I can write > a short paper with this proposed resolution. > > > My preference is an LWG issue. It can probably get approved by email, and be > on the "Ready" list going into Cologne. That should take up less LWG time > during the meeting, and less of your time :-) > > > > > John. > > > > On Jun 12, 2019, at 3:58 PM, Jonathan Wakely <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > There are parallel overloads of algorithms in <memory>, so it should define > > the macro. Also, <execution> defines the exec policies for use with the > > algos, so that should define the macro too. > > > > Proposed resolution: > > > > In [support.limits.general] add <memory> and <execution> to the table row > > for __cpp_lib_parallel_algorithm. > > > > > > | __cpp_lib_parallel_algorithm | > > | 201603L | > > | <algorithm> <INS><execution> <memory</INS> <numeric> | > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Features mailing list > > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features > > <http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features> >
_______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
