Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:19:53 +0000
> 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>?
My idea is that we are providing these recommendations for implementers who
provide these features as specified in the 2013 CD, which of course is what
the published revision of SD-6 is already doing.
In some ways, this is a demonstration of our concern for stability. I don't
know how often these specific recommendations will be implemented, but even
if it's "never", I don't see that as a major problem. Someday there will
(hopefully) be a TR that makes a more appropriate and popular recommendation.
Clark
My idea is that we are providing these recommendations for implementers who
provide these features as specified in the 2013 CD, which of course is what
the published revision of SD-6 is already doing.
In some ways, this is a demonstration of our concern for stability. I don't
know how often these specific recommendations will be implemented, but even
if it's "never", I don't see that as a major problem. Someday there will
(hopefully) be a TR that makes a more appropriate and popular recommendation.
Clark
Received on 2014-08-25 17:19:59