C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [SG10] Final(?) draft: first revision of SD-6

From: Richard Smith <richard_at_[hidden]>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 21:57:09 -0700
One minor issue:

Libraries that want to do empty-base optimization could reasonably want to
use <ins>!</ins>is_final && is_empty if is_final exists, and fall back to
just using is_empty otherwise.

Otherwise, this LGTM.

For the "removed from C++14" features, are we documenting the former state,
or the state of the TS? That is, should [47] say <experimental/optional>
now, and should [3.8.1] say experimental/ for <optional> and <dynarray>?

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Nelson, Clark <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]>

> Here is the updated draft, hopefully ready for "formal" publication on
> isocpp.org.
> Does anyone have any comment on whether we should publish before or after
> the Urbana meeting? Please see the "Formally revising" message I posted
> Tuesday for brief discussion.
> I made a few changes we did not discuss in the meeting:
> Fixed the grammar of __has_cpp_attribute, as suggested by Aaron.
> Moved the rationale for __has_include from N3662 (<dynarray>, which is no
> longer a C++14 feature) to N3659 (<shared_mutex>, which is).
> Fixed up the HTML somewhat, mainly in the use of <ins> tags.
> --
> Clark Nelson Vice chair, PL22.16 (ANSI C++ standard committee)
> Intel Corporation Chair, SG10 (C++ SG for feature-testing)
> clark.nelson_at_[hidden] Chair, CPLEX (C SG for parallel language
> extensions)
> _______________________________________________
> Features mailing list
> Features_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features

Received on 2014-08-25 06:57:11