Subject: Re: [SG10] First draft recommendation for C++14
From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-03 01:58:30
On 05/03/2013 12:33 AM, Nelson, Clark wrote:
> I've attached the work I've done so far towards drafting a
> feature-testing recommendation for C++14. The prose is just copied
> from my original paper (N3435), as a sort of place-holder for an
> introduction. The real work went into the table.
I haven't gone through every line in the table, but in general
this looks as expected.
Do we want to sort the table by (numeric) paper number, or by
section number? Whatever we do, it might be good to specify the
sort order in the introductory prose so that updates are
For some of the macro names, I have the gut feeling that we
need to read the original paper to come up with a slightly
more to-the-point name. "robust_sequences" sounds just too
as predefined is a bit unfortunate. In general, the compiler core
won't know which headers its standard library provides.
I don't think __cpp_new_merging is required: This making the
rules more strict. Any program satisfying the stricter
rules also satisfies the more relaxed C++11 rules. Why would
anyone need to check?
SG10 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com