Subject: Re: [SG10] P0074R0: Making std::owner_less more flexible
From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-02-23 16:18:40
"5.2.6 N4089: Safe conversions in unique_ptr<T>
This considered a fix for a library issue, to remove an unnecessary restriction;"
"5.2.8 N4190: Removing auto_ptr, random_shuffle(), And Old <functional> Stuff
... that uses one of these obsolescent features when it is available."
Where does "it" point to? "features"? That doesn't fit grammar-wise.
"5.2.9 N4230: Nested namespace definition
... it's just makes it somewhat easier to write code"
On 02/23/2016 10:14 PM, Nelson, Clark wrote:
> We really need to update SD-6 on isocpp.org before another meeting goes by.
> So I'm tempted to suggest that an implementation that has P0074 should
> define __cpp_lib_transparent_operators to be 201510 in <memory> *and also*
> <functional>, whereas an implementation that has N3421 but not P0074 should
> define it to be 201210 in <functional> (only).
> Also, I got the section number wrong for that row; it should be 20.7,
> not 20.8. So I'd like to move it up a couple of rows.
> I have made the proposed changes in the attached document.
> Please reply indicating whether you would like me to update SD-6 based on
> the attachment, or on P0096R1 from the mailing -- or if you'd rather I not
> update it at all. (I think that pretty much exhausts the available
> alternatives, unless there's some other very small tweak to be made.)
For paper-trail reasons, I'd really like to have SD-6 be a verbatim
copy of some published paper. Specifically, that means you should
apply the fixes from above, publish P0096R2 in the post-meeting
mailing and update SD-6 concurrently with that. Unless you think
the three weeks of delay this entails does major damage.
You can also do this earlier, but then you can't apply any
further fixes to P0096R2 (because it's published).
SG10 list run by email@example.com