C++ Logo

SG10

Advanced search

Subject: Re: [SG10] Minutes from Lenexa meeting
From: Aaron Ballman (aaron_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-28 07:59:58


June 15 works for me

~Aaron

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 9:23 PM, Nelson, Clark <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> SG10 met at the Overland Park Marriott at 7:30 PM on 2015-05-05.
>
> Attending:
> Clark Nelson (chair)
> Walter Brown
> Jens Maurer
> John Spicer
> Richard Smith
> Jared Hoberock
>
> We decided to add an annex to SD-6, containing model text, for inclusion in
> a Technical Specification, to describe feature-test macros. (Jared was in
> attendance to make sure there would be no issues with respect to the
> Concurrency TS.) The result is included in the attached draft.
>
> AI: Clark to try to get the Concepts TS to go along with this direction.
>
> We decided that SD-6 should include information about feature-test macros
> defined in Technical Specifications, so that there would be a single place
> where information about all the macros would be available. The plan is to
> incorporate that information once a TS is finalized, but that a test macro
> should be specified in a PDTS.
>
> AI: Clark to incorporate macros from the four TSes that have been or are
> being finalized (not in the attached draft).
>
> We agreed that the argument to __has_cpp_attribute should be subject to
> macro expansion, and that, lacking any specific statement to the contrary,
> it is already specified to be so.
>
> Primarily with mathematical special functions in mind, there was some
> discussion of what to do about conditionally-supported features. In the
> attached draft I have resurrected (as an editorial note) the table that I
> wrote oh so long ago, for people to consider again. (Although in light of
> later events, this might not be too interesting.)
>
> We reviewed the proposed changes to the C++14 table; no concerns were
> raised.
>
> We briefly considered what to do about C++11. As an interim step, the
> consensus seemed to be not to add anything new at this time; the additions
> have been removed from the attached draft. For an ultimate decision, it was
> considered necessary to understand Microsoft's plans with respect to SD-6.
>
> AI: Clark to query Microsoft and report back.
>
> Also, there was talk about adding an index for all the macro names.
>
> AI: Clark to work on an index.
>
> Following up from the meeting:
>
> Naturally, new changes were approved at this meeting, for which I have
> already added rationale stubs. For each of these, I am soliciting a
> contribution of either an example of how a macro could be used or an
> explanation of why a macro wouldn't be useful. (I think I can handle N4366
> by myself. :-)
>
> Richard pointed out an example he posted on the wiki for N4268. I have
> incorporated it in the attached draft -- along with an editorial note
> raising the question of the usefulness of the technique and the macro.
>
> After consultation with James Dennett, I have also included rationale for
> why a macro for N3922 wouldn't be justified.
>
> Coming into Lenexa, those were the last two C++17 changes that were missing
> rationale. I'd like everyone to take one more critical look at everything in
> section 4.2, to see if there's anything you find questionable. Once we're
> sure we like all the rationale for what macros should and shouldn't be
> defined, we then need to go back through the table to settle the exact
> names.
>
> We should probably hold a teleconference for that. Would the usual time slot
> on June 15 be good?
>
> --
> 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
>


SG10 list run by sg10-owner@lists.isocpp.org