C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [SG10] Changes for C++11 and 98

From: W Brown <webrown.cpp_at_[hidden]>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 16:43:06 -0500
I would actually prefer us to incorporate what we can as soon as we can. IMO, the proposals seem not controversial, so the sooner we can make this information public, the sooner we all can start using the newly-defined facilities.

However, I also firmly believe that it is Clark who should make the final call, because it is after all his time and effort that is needed to do the editing, and in a rather short time frame.

And independent of the present proposals, I'm sure that I speak for each of SG10's participants in expressing considerable appreciation for his leadership and editorial acumen: we thank you very much, Clark.


-- WEB

On Sep 30, 2014, at 12:52 PM, Nelson, Clark wrote:

> 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
> on isocpp.org.
> 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?

Received on 2014-09-30 23:43:12