C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [SG10] Meeting 04-06

From: Nelson, Clark <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 00:56:32 +0000
I reviewed the reflector traffic since Urbana, and (re)discovered a couple
of questions that should perhaps be added to the agenda:

There is a question whether descriptions of
feature-test macros from TSes should also be duplicated or summarized in
SD-6. That is not something we have done so far, and my personal
inclination is to say that we probably shouldn't, but I don't remember
SG10 ever discussing the question before.

Should the argument to __has_cpp_attribute be expanded by the preprocessor?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: features-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:features-bounces_at_open-
> std.org] On Behalf Of Nelson, Clark
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 10:24 AM
> To: features_at_[hidden] (features_at_[hidden])
> Subject: [SG10] Meeting 04-06
> I'd like for SG10 to meet Monday, April 6.
> 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.
> Meeting specifics:
> Monday, April 6, 2015
> 10:00 am | Pacific Daylight Time (San Francisco, GMT-07:00) |
> 2 hrs
> http://www.open-std.org/pipermail/features/2015-March/000303.html
> 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 2015-03-24 01:56:38