Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 20:50:45 +0200
2017-07-25 20:22 GMT+02:00 Nelson, Clark <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]>:
> I'm back.
Great!
> 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.
>
Aah, that's the meaning! I was already thinking of "ex" like
"ex-parrot" (See
https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiFk7uWjKXVAhUKb1AKHRCVAxkQtwIIJjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D4vuW6tQ0218&usg=AFQjCNEKZf8AIxWgENDzhVCoPvR0r0TGMQ)
;-)
I volunteer to provide examples for
__cpp_lib_is_invocable
__cpp_inline_variables
within the next two days.
> 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.
>
I very much appreciate that new one!
> 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.
Thanks for all your work taking care of this document state!
- Daniel
> I'm back.
Great!
> 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.
>
Aah, that's the meaning! I was already thinking of "ex" like
"ex-parrot" (See
https://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiFk7uWjKXVAhUKb1AKHRCVAxkQtwIIJjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D4vuW6tQ0218&usg=AFQjCNEKZf8AIxWgENDzhVCoPvR0r0TGMQ)
;-)
I volunteer to provide examples for
__cpp_lib_is_invocable
__cpp_inline_variables
within the next two days.
> 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.
>
I very much appreciate that new one!
> 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.
Thanks for all your work taking care of this document state!
- Daniel
Received on 2017-07-25 20:50:48