Subject: [SG10] New draft of Jacksonville additions
From: Nelson, Clark (clark.nelson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-03-14 18:19:14
Here's a new draft. Significant changes:
I deleted the macros identifying all of the brand-new headers, from both
fundamentals and parallelism:
<optional> <any> <string_view> <memory_resource>
The proposal (with rationale) is now that non-const data for string
needs no macro, and similarly for enum construction rules.
I have added a macro, with proposed spelling and example (from Richard;
many thanks), for addressof (LWG2296).
The change to fold expressions is represented by bumping the value of
__cpp_fold_expressions. (There will be two adjacent lines in the C++17
table, giving different values to that macro, depending on how many
operators are given a default value.) I deleted the question mark.
Consensus seems to support bumping __cpp_constexpr to indicate that
it can apply to a lambda, so I deleted the question mark.
No one has suggested a better name than __cpp_aggregate_bases, so I
deleted the question mark.
The only question that doesn't seem to have been settled yet is the
name of the macro for this-capture. The contenders seem to be:
Different people have spoken in favor of each. Let the argument begin
SG10 list run by firstname.lastname@example.org