The row for __cpp_lib_array_constexpr should say that the macro is defined
by <array> as well, since it changes member functions of std::array.



On 3 August 2016 at 17:56, Jonathan Wakely <cxx_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> The row for __cpp_lib_not_fn says the header is <function> which should be
> <functional>
>
> The row for __cpp_lib_lock_guard_variadic says the header is <thread> but
> lock_guard is defined in <mutex>
>
>
> On 22 July 2016 at 20:06, Nelson, Clark <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Many thanks to Richard and Jonathan for their recent suggestions.
>>
>> I have posted a new draft:
>>
>> http://wiki.edg.com/pub/Wg21oulu/SG10/sd-6.html#recs.cpp17
>>
>> It reflects most of the recent discussion. (I am not yet assuming we have
>> reached consensus about any/optional.)
>>
>> I have also done quite a bit of editorial work.
>>
>> One of the most significant changes is that I deleted most of the
>> editorial
>> question marks indicating uncertainty about a proposal, calling attention
>> for
>> review. What I'd like people to do is take a close look at the whole of
>> the
>> C++17 content. (The insertion indications are relative to the posted SD-6,
>> so everything from Jacksonville and Oulu is considered new.)
>>
>> What I have done instead is add an indication for every proposed macro for
>> which we don't yet have an example -- which is to say, for which we don't
>> yet have a rationale. I'd really like to get more examples -- but I don't
>> plan to do all the work of inventing them myself.
>>
>> --
>> Clark Nelson Chair, PL22.16 (ANSI C++ standard committee)
>> Intel Corporation Chair, SG10 (C++ SG for feature-testing)
>> clark.nelson_at_[hidden] Chair, CPLEX (C SG for parallel language
>> extensions)
>> _______________________________________________
>> Features mailing list
>> Features_at_[hidden]
>> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
>>
>
>