C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [SG10] Meeting 03-23

From: Nelson, Clark <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 17:15:46 +0000
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.


> -----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)

Received on 2015-03-23 18:16:05