I'm back.

First, I'd like to apologize for my long absence. It was partly due to my assumption that, after the CD was voted out from Oulu, we wouldn't have to worry much about new features.

It turns out I was overly optimistic. At each of the Issaquah and Kona meetings, we approved at least a half-dozen more-significant changes, requiring at least consideration of whether some sort of feature-test change is needed.

I should point out, however, that at this point I am still assuming that most of the NB issue resolutions really are just bug-fixes. I have added entries for the ones that were brought up on the reflector, and I am counting on people to bring up any others that I have missed.

I have posted an updated document on the wiki:

http://wiki.edg.com/pub/Wg21toronto2017/SG10/sd-6.html

I did try splitting out the rationale into a separate document, but the attempt convinced me that the disadvantages were greater than I had imagined. So I have backed away from that idea.

The insertion indications in the document should be reliable, but they are relative to the SD-6 that's published on isocpp.org, so they have been accumulating for a while.

But the yellow-background editorial notes should also be a useful guide. Note in particular that, for every change for which a macro is proposed, "ex." indicates one for which we have no example in the rationale.

Other particularly noteworthy changes include a new recommendation concerning thread-safe static initialization (concerning C++11, from Daniel Krügler), deletion of indication of STUBS, and a few features that were in the CD for C++17 but were later removed, renamed, or otherwise reformulated.

At this point I have very consciously avoided updating the section numbers in the C++17 table; I'd like to do that as a separate step, along with zero or minimal technical changes. I also haven't yet looked into any of the TS's published recently, to see if they contain any recommendations.

(And I know the section and paragraph numbers have problems in Chrome. They are right with IE11, so I suspect my CSS is OK, and that there's a bug in Chrome. If anyone can offer help with a workaround, I will appreciate it, but complaints will be ignored.)

There's a mailing deadline coming up in about a week, in which I'd like to publish this as P0096R4. As far as completeness is concerned, I think it will appear pretty much as it is, but if anyone sees any errors before then, please speak up.

--
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)