C++ Logo

SG10

Advanced search

Subject: Re: [SG10] P0074R0: Making std::owner_less more flexible
From: Nelson, Clark (clark.nelson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-02-23 15:57:32


> I’m not sure what, if any, is the process required/desired of such
> updates.

As established at the Urbana meeting, the process is that the consensus we
need is of SG10, not WG21.

My personal preference is that we would do every update from a WG21
document. But I'd also prefer that the published SD-6 not have any glaring
errors.

The question is whether we have consensus within SG10 which principle
should take precedence.

> If there is no required process, then the attachment seems better
> than P0996R1.

Noted, thanks.

Clark


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