OK, that could have turned out better.

No doubt at least in part because I provided the meeting details only two hours before it was scheduled to start, we didn't get critical mass for the meeting today.

So we'll try again in two weeks.

Sorry,
Clark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: features-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:features-bounces_at_open-
> std.org] On Behalf Of Nelson, Clark
> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 11:27 AM
> To: features_at_[hidden] (features_at_[hidden])
> Subject: [SG10] Meeting 03-23
>
> I'd like for SG10 to meet Monday, as I originally tentatively
> proposed back
> at the beginning of February (remember that?).
>
> If you would like to attend, but this Monday at 10:00 Pacific time
> (summer
> time! specifically UTC-7) would not work out for you, please reply
> to me
> privately. If I get enough complaints, I'll move it to April 6;
> that would
> still be in time for the pre-Lenexa mailing. (I will schedule the
> meeting
> in WebEx, and provide connection details, by Friday.)
>
> The only changes I have made to the document since February were
> to add
> editor notes (yellow) to the rationale section for C++17
> indicating
> changes for which we intend to recommend no macro; capturing our
> justifications for these decisions is particularly important, in
> my view.
> Explicit justification would also be necessary for changes to
> recommendations we previously published for C++14.
>
> Agenda:
>
> There are about a half-dozen entries in the C++17 table where more
> than one
> name has been proposed, or where some other question exists. We
> need to
> reach consensus on all of those. And of course there's no harm in
> everyone
> taking another look at all the other entries, to make sure we have
> those
> right as well.
>
> There are a couple of proposed changes to the recommendations for
> C++14.
> We need to make sure the consensus is that those changes are
> really
> justified.
>
> Then there's the whole question of what we should do about C++11,
> including
> whether we already went too far when SD-6 was revised at the end
> of the
> year. For specifics, see:
>
> https://isocpp.org/std/standing-documents/sd-6-sg10-feature-test-
> recommendations#recs.cpp11
>
> The new entries, for which we didn't specifically consider the
> rationale,
> are the underlined ones: range-based for, specific attributes, and
> everything in the table from initializer lists on.
>
> --
> Clark Nelson Chair, PL22.16 (ANSI C++ standard
> committee)
> Intel Corporation Chair, SG10 (C++ SG for feature-testing)
> clark.nelson_at_[hidden] Chair, CPLEX (C SG for parallel language
> extensions)