On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Nelson, Clark <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> Apologies, especially to Ed, for the long silence.
>
> Here is an updated document. I have added __cpp_noexcept as Ed proposed,
> and
> __cpp_forward_decl_enum, as he appears to have proposed. Ed didn't seem to
> make any other positive proposals, but I received an independent suggestion
> about explicit conversion operators, so I have added it as well.
>

I note you've added __cpp_lib_removed_* macros for removing library
features; I thought the prevailing direction was that we didn't need them
(code should be saying "is there a unique_ptr? if so, use it, otherwise use
auto_ptr" or similar). Did we reverse that direction, or are these here
just for consideration / reference?

I have a slight preference for __cpp_explicit_conversion getting a trailing
's'.


> I also received a correction from Agustin Berge about the location
> (subclause and header) of __cpp_lib_result_of_sfinae (C++14). The previous
> location really was just flat-out wrong -- mea culpa. I'm very interested
> in
> knowing whether any implementer actually went to the trouble to implement
> the published recommendation in an unrelated header. If not, maybe we can
> just treat this as an erratum and move on.
>
> We seem to be getting diminishing returns of feedback from the reflector,
> so
> I think we're approaching a point where we should have a teleconference to
> try to get stuff settled.
>
> >From my perspective, our next opportunity to meet would be February 23,
> but
> there's a LWG meeting in Germany that week. Is there anyone who might
> attend
> SG10 who will be attending that instead?
>
> If that day wouldn't be good, then we're probably looking at either March 9
> (a Canadian holiday) or 23.


I think either of these dates works for me.