On 03/24/2015 01:56 AM, Nelson, Clark wrote:
> 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?

One more:

Should TSes use the macro spelling pattern

  __cpp_experimental_whatever

or

  __cpp_whatever

assuming that the value of the macro will change anyway when a feature
moves from TS land to the standard proper?

Jens


> Clark
>
>> -----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)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Features mailing list
> Features_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
>