On 10/08/2014 12:09 PM, 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.
>
> Clark
Greetings,

I was wondering if we got any feedback from the last meeting on these or
any other SD-6 ideas?

I was just hoping to make sure I have the latest as we finish up gcc-5
at my end.

Ed