Subject: [SG10] Changes for C++11 and 98
From: Nelson, Clark (clark.nelson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-09-30 12:52:30
I have been thinking about Ed's proposals.
The timing is interesting. The end of next week is the pre-meeting mailing,
in which I had planned to archive the next revision of SD-6 to be published
Maybe the timing is good, because now we have an opportunity to get this
stuff into the next revision. Or maybe the timing is not so good, because
the window is very short.
For myself, I am moderately inclined to go ahead and publish the revisions
that cover the updated C++14, and do the back-filling for C++11 and older as
a separate transaction -- hopefully by about the time of the next meeting.
Does anyone have any strong feelings one way or the other?
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)
SG10 list run by email@example.com