> > Or would it make more sense just to limit our scope to language
> features?
>
> Can I ask a stupid question?
>
> What are we defining as a "feature"?

That's not at all a stupid question; answering that is one of the really significant problems that this study group was formed to investigate.

For the moment, we're just using it to mean the obvious: a new thing in a standard.

> And should we be able to detect it at compile time, or runtime, or both?

The problem is how to deal with different implementations (including different compilers), some of which have a feature, and others of which do not. If an implementation doesn't have a feature, a program that tries to use it won't be able to build. So we're talking about detecting the presence of a feature at compile time.

Clark