On 10/07/2014 06:52 PM, Nelson, Clark wrote:
> 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
>>>> N2930 __cpp_range_based_for_loops 200907
>>> Seems a bit wordy. __cpp_range_for ?
>> Cool.
> To me, __cpp_range_for seems a little terse. How would people feel about
> compromising on __cpp_range_based_for?
>
>>>> N2672 __cpp_initializer_lists 200806
> 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.
>
> Clark

The changes look great.
As for the names - they look good to me. I'm not great at bikeshedding.
C++98 looks like it's still a stub - I didn't see anything there - did
you forget something?

I think C++11 is no longer a stub - it's done.

I was looking at the things moved out of C++14 into a TS. I agree we
need to explain that they were moved out of C++ but we're keeping the
macros. It will also be necessary I think to add tables for each TS and
track them (which means, for example, <optional> would appear in the
'moved out of C++14' table and also be in the future 'Fundamentals TS'
table). Obviously that's not happening this go-round.

Thank you for your work..

Ed