On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Nelson, Clark <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I have made a few minor revisions since N4030.
>
> The redlining in the document is relative to the published SD-6; I think
> that's the way we'll want to publish it. But here is what I've changed
> recently:
>
> In response to Ed Smith-Rowland's question about <optional> vs.
> <experimental/optional> I updated the __has_include example. Of course it's
> just an example, but I think it's more helpful now than it was.
>
> In response to Walter's question about the "policy" for the C++14 table, I
> minimally tweaked the text. :-)
>
> In response to Richard's question/complaint, I deleted "has" from the macro
> names for new features added by LWG issues.
>
> There are sentences in the rationale section about features removed from
> C++14 to a TS; I have changed them from editorial notes to plain old text.
> (I don't know what's going to happen with the array extension TS, but it is
> still an official project with an official number; hopefully something will
> come of it.)
>
>
> This still needs work in three areas:
>
> 1. We need introductory text and rationale for __has_cpp_attribute.
> (Richard?)

I can help with this wording. Also, I had raised a question on 3/29
(Re: On __has_attribute) regarding attribute versioning. There wasn't
any discussion that followed (sorry, I should have pinged this), but I
would like to see if there's any interest in such a concept. I will
resurrect that thread momentarily.

~Aaron