I want to publish a revision of SD-6 in the pre-meeting mailing (deadline
tomorrow). I'm not knocking myself out to achieve any particular state;
I just want it to be as complete as I can reasonably achieve in the
available time.

But I have made some changes on which people might like to comment, so I
have posted a new revision on the wiki:

http://wiki.edg.com/twiki/pub/Wg21lenexa/SG10/sd-6.html

Over the weekend, I'll be traveling to the WG14 meeting, so I want to
submit this for the mailing in just about 24 hours. So if you want to
review this before it is published, please don't delay.

The most important change is that I have added examples for some library
features.

Now, the fact that I have dared even to attempt to write examples for C++
library features should give anyone who knows me only moderately well some
idea of how serious I am about considering and recording the rationale for
all of our recommendations going forward.

A big part of my desire to publish this is to let the proposers of the new
features review the rationale/example. So I'm not depending on anybody in
SG10 reviewing them. But if you have some time -- and especially if you're
up for a laugh -- you might want to look them over. (The examples for N3911
and N4258 are by Walter and Pablo, not me, so don't look to them for humor
value.)

The other significant changes include:

Deleting the names of people from whom I am hoping to get a contribution
of example or rationale. :-)

I think that we really should distinguish cases where we change the
value of a macro from those where we introduce a new macro. I have
introduced a convention to do that, which is explained in the document.
For examples, see N4267, N3928 and N3652. I'm interested in feedback on
whether what I have done is enough (or too much).

I have decided that if a name is workable in the library, it is
unambiguous enough for a macro. So for N4279 and N4258, I have added new
proposals about the spelling of the macro name, to better match the (or
at least some) library name that it represents. Conversely, for N4169 and
N3911, I have retracted proposals that I made before, of longer names to
better disambiguate.

Thanks in advance for all feedback.

--
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)