C++ Logo

sg10

Advanced search

Re: [SG10] Meeting 04-06

From: Nelson, Clark <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 22:56:12 +0000
Please don't forget about Monday's meeting.

I have posted a more complete agenda and a new revision of SD-6
on the SG10 wiki page for Lenexa:

http://wiki.edg.com/twiki/bin/view/Wg21lenexa/SG10

If you plan to attend the meeting, please let me know privately.

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 5:57 PM
> To: features_at_[hidden] (features_at_[hidden])
> Subject: Re: [SG10] Meeting 04-06
>
> 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?
>
> 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

Received on 2015-04-04 00:56:19