Subject: [SG10] Changes for C++11 and 98
From: Nelson, Clark (clark.nelson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-10-07 17:52:28
I was kind of busy for a while, but I'm looking into this now. We'll see what
we can do before Friday. Here is what I have done so far.
One of the first things I notice is that the C++11 table doesn't have any
links. I went ahead and added the links to the papers -- that was largely
mechanical. But adding the links to what should be rationale isn't worth much
if we don't actually have rationale, and the time for adding real rationale is
very, very short, so I'd rather just skip it for now.
Another high-level question: are we ready at this point to stop calling the
C++11 and C++98 sections stubs?
> From: Ed Smith-Rowland [mailto:3dw4rd_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 5:57 PM
> To: Richard Smith
> Cc: Nelson, Clark; features_at_[hidden] (features_at_[hidden])
> Subject: Re: [SG10] New draft of SD-6
> > > N2930Â Â Â __cpp_range_based_for_loopsÂ Â Â 200907Â Â Â
> > Seems a bit wordy. __cpp_range_for ?
To me, __cpp_range_for seems a little terse. How would people feel about
compromising on __cpp_range_based_for?
> > > N2672Â Â Â __cpp_initializer_listsÂ Â Â 200806Â Â Â
To me it seems that the word "iterator" should be part of the name of this
feature. Even if true, I suppose we should still name the macro after the
possibly mis-named library class.
SG10 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com