I intend to be on the CWG telecon on Monday as well. Apr 20 happens to
not work for me, but don't let that sway any decisions on whether to
host on that day or wait until Lenexa.

~Aaron

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Nelson, Clark <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Richard has pointed out two unfortunate blunders on my part.
>
> First, the wiki page had the wrong date: today, instead of Monday. (Fixed.)
>
> Second, Monday's time slot conflicts with a Core telecon.
> That presents a problem for Richard and John, and maybe for others as well.
>
> So now I'm wondering whether people think we should try to meet on
> April 20 instead, or just wait until we are all in Lenexa.
>
> Perhaps it would be better to send replies to the reflector.
>
> Clark
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: features-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:features-bounces_at_open-
>> std.org] On Behalf Of Nelson, Clark
>> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 3:56 PM
>> To: features_at_[hidden] (features_at_[hidden])
>> Subject: Re: [SG10] Meeting 04-06
>>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> Features mailing list
>> Features_at_[hidden]
>> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
> _______________________________________________
> Features mailing list
> Features_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features