Since no one has commented on this, I guess it's safe for me to make a decision unilaterally.

Clark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: features-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:features-bounces_at_open-
> std.org] On Behalf Of Nelson, Clark
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 10:16 AM
> To: features_at_[hidden] (features_at_[hidden])
> Subject: [SG10] Formally revising SD-6
>
> I said previously that I thought we would be ready to revise the
> SD-6 on
> isocpp.org before the Urbana meeting, and I still think that --
> the text is
> all but ready now. But in thinking about the process of publishing
> the
> revision, I had a new thought.
>
> I think it would be a good idea to have the practice of publishing
> a WG21
> N-document with the text we want SD-6 to have, and then basically
> to copy
> that document to isocpp.org to become the new SD-6. (That would be
> like an
> extremely primitive form of version control.)
>
> It might (or might not) also be a good idea to announce at a
> meeting that we
> have a revision ready to publish, to give people a chance to
> comment. That
> certainly has the advantage of transparency; the interesting
> question is
> whether the added delay would be worth it. In this particular
> instance, that
> would postpone the update by just about three months.
>
> Any comments?
>
> --
> 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