Subject: Re: [SG10] P0074R0: Making std::owner_less more flexible
From: Nelson, Clark (clark.nelson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-02-23 17:38:40
> "5.2.6 N4089: Safe conversions in unique_ptr<T>
> This considered a fix for a library issue, to remove an unnecessary
> add "is"
> "5.2.8 N4190: Removing auto_ptr, random_shuffle(), And Old
> <functional> Stuff
> ... that uses one of these obsolescent features when it is
> Where does "it" point to? "features"? That doesn't fit grammar-
Specifically, "it" is intended to refer to an obsolescent feature.
I disagree that there is a grammar problem, but I'm wondering if it might be
clearer if "it is" were omitted from that sentence:
... uses one of these obsolescent features when available.
> "5.2.9 N4230: Nested namespace definition
> ... it's just makes it somewhat easier to write code"
> remove "'s"
> > So I'm tempted to suggest that an implementation that has P0074
> > 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).
> > 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
> 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.
Good point: that is another available alternative, and probably superior.
I will follow that plan, unless someone objects.
SG10 list run by email@example.com