C++ Logo


Advanced search

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

From: Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd_at_[hidden]>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:03:14 -0500 (CDT)
 This looks great. I think we're out of stubs. ;-) If we're feeling bad about that This came out of the 2014-05 fundamentals-ts paper.
I'm sure there will be more input like this after the meeting. These can wait though: They've appeared in print and thus have had eyes.
                          Table 2 ? Significant features in this technical specification
 Doc. No. Title Macro Name Value Header
N3925 A sample Proposal __cpp_lib_experimental_sample 201402 <experimental/algorithm>
N3923 A SFINAE-Friendly iterator_traits __cpp_lib_experimental_iterator_traits_sfinae 201402 <iterator>
N3843 A SFINAE-Friendly common_type __cpp_lib_experimental_common_type_sfinae 201402 <type_traits>

And from the filesystem TS:
N4080 Filesystem TS __cpp_lib_experimental_filesystem 201406 <experimental/filesystem>

On 10/08/14, Nelson, Clark wrote:

> C++98 looks like it's still a stub - I didn't see anything there -
> did
> you forget something?

What I forgot to do was save the file one last time before I attached it to
the message. [head-slap] This is more like what I meant to send yesterday.

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

OK, thanks. I think it's safe to say it's not a stub, even if there is a
possibility that we may yet add something else.

> 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 probably would be worth adding some explanation of the purpose of that
table. I have taken a stab at it; feedback welcome.

> 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.

I'm not entirely sure that's what we would want to do even if we had time --
which we definitely do not.


Received on 2014-10-08 22:03:41