C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [SG10] First draft of SD-6 with changes from Oulu

From: Richard Smith <richard_at_[hidden]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 17:48:22 -0700
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Nelson, Clark <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]>

> > Maybe it doesn't matter for the purposes of SD-6, but for P0220R1
> > the shared_ptr changes for arrays were approved in Jacksonville, but
> > are not in the CD due to editorial conflicts. P0414R0 aims to
> > correct that.
> >
> > Similarly, P0067R3 was approved in Oulu, but isn't in the CD because
> > the editor noticed inconsistencies in the wording which mean it
> > needs to be revised and go through LWG again.
> >
> > If those features do make it back into the WP in time for C++17 the
> > date 201603 might not make sense for their macros. On the other hand
> > maybe it does still make sense, as the substance of the proposals
> > will still be what was voted on in Jacksonville and Oulu
> > respectively.
> Hmm. Thanks for pointing these out.
> For P0067R3, which wasn't applied to the WD at all, the interesting
> question will be when and how R4 (or successor) makes it into the WD.
> If it's voted in at a subsequent meeting, we should probably use the date
> of
> that vote. But if the changes relative to R3 are considered to be
> editorial,
> there might conceivably not be another WG21 vote, in which case we should
> use the Oulu date. (But in either case, are we really going to try adding
> it
> to C++17 after the CD goes out?)

IIUC, there will be at least one NB comment requesting we do so, since it
only missed the CD due to a wording oversight. Having looked at R4, I don't
think I'm likely to consider the difference to be editorial, so (assuming
that LWG doesn't say no to the NB comment) there should be a full committee
motion to adopt the fixed wording.

All the same considerations apply to P0220R1, but it's even a little more
> complicated because it was only part of the paper.
> For the time being, I'm inclined to omit the row for P0067; I can always
> resurrect it later.

Sounds good to me.

For P0220, because of the complications of the row-spanning in the table,
> I'd kind of rather not try to branch-predict. I think I'll touch base with
> Herb about his expectations.
> Clark
> _______________________________________________
> Features mailing list
> Features_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features

Received on 2016-07-20 02:48:24