On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 8:08 AM, Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 02/20/2014 07:29 PM, Nelson, Clark wrote:
> > I have attached a new draft of our recommendations, which at least starts
> > to take into account what has happened since Chicago. We need to talk
> about
> > it. I haven't yet heard any objection to meeting on March 17.
>
> Here are my opinions on the yellow stuff.
>
> N3910 signal handlers
> N3927 lock-free
>
> are both defect reports and do not need a feature-test macro.
>
> N3781 digit separators We only have one (character), so the plural
> in the macro name strikes me as slightly odd. But then, we have plural
> everywhere else, too. -> fine with me.
>

I'm a little concerned about providing a digit separators feature test
macro. It seems to encourage people to use digit separators in #ifdef'd
code, which doesn't work, so I'm not sure how much value the macro adds.

N3778 sized deallocation
>
> yes.
>
>
> N3760 [[deprecated]]
>
> It's hard to see the need for a #define here, given that unknown
> attributes are ignores. Otherwise fine with me.
>
>
> N3639 runtime-sized arrays
> N3662 C++ Dynamic Arrays
>
> These got moved into a TS and should not appear here.
>
>
> N3887 metafunction aliases
>
> The macro should get another prefix underscore. For a name, try
> to ping the paper author.
>
>
> Agreed for the rest of the -lib papers.
>
> Jens
> _______________________________________________
> Features mailing list
> Features_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
>