C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [SG10] Meeting

From: Nelson, Clark <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 03:00:08 +0000
> While I usually prefer face-to-face meetings, I vote in this case
> for a telecon, and further suggest we routinely schedule a telecon
> after each post-meeting mailing henceforth:

Excellent idea. (Walter, you're a better chair than I am. :-|)

If we limit ourselves to the Monday-morning-10:00AM-Pacific time slot that
works so well for me personally and is also workable for European callers,
then we might do it on March 3 -- but hopefully I'll actually be assembling
the mailing that morning. Since I have a CPLEX meeting in that time slot
every other week, we could more realistically do it March 17.

Or, since Jens seems to have dropped out of participation in SG10, maybe we
could go for a different time slot. Is there anyone (else) in Europe who
might want to call in?

> 2) A further near-term topic would be to make progress on
> fleshing out the SD-6 stub sections for pre-C++14 features as we
> have promised to do.


For C++98, since he was so interested, I was expecting Benjamin to work on
that. But he has apparently dropped entirely out of the committee, so I
guess that's not going to happen. But maybe it's easy: just exceptions and
RTTI. (And export templates? :-)

Would anyone like to volunteer to take the lead on C++11?

> 3) I propose we also prepare for feature testing vis-a-vis the
> multitude of TSs in current or imminent flight.

Absolutely. I think we need to add a new section and (probably pretty short)
table for each TS. The entries for runtime_arrays, <optional> and <dynarray>
need to be moved out of the C++14 table. I'll take care of those details.

But now that I think about it, I'm wondering whether a TS, since it really
is optional, should specify its own feature-testing method. Comments?

I just realized that I fairly urgently need to talk to Beman about the
filesystem TS, since it has been voted out of WG21. I hope that a window of
opportunity hasn't already closed.

> Finally, I recommend that the SG10 membership request and
> authorize Clark to remind paper authors to propose names, where
> appropriate, for SG10's feature tests, and ask that he routinely
> do so each time he henceforth announces (or reminds of) a mailing
> deadline.

I'm still hoping that, in the long term, this message can be conveyed mainly
through the various WG chairs. But I definitely want to stress it in the
SG10 report-out Friday.


Received on 2014-02-13 04:00:38