C++ Logo


Advanced search

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

From: Nelson, Clark <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]>
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.


Received on 2014-08-25 17:19:59