I have posted another revision:

http://wiki.edg.com/pub/Wg21albuquerque/SG10/sd-6.html

The only technical changes have to do with P0135R1, but I have also updated the section references from the C++17 table (and reordered a few things to better match the revised section order).


I have been assuming that, in the revision of SD-6, the display of editor-notes (at this point consisting almost entirely of indications of missing examples) would be disabled by the style sheet.

But I'm somewhat inclined to leave them enabled in the revision in the pre-Albuquerque mailing (i.e. the one that EWG and LEWG will be considering); IOW to tweak the style sheet after the content is captured in the mailing.

If you would be concerned about that course of action, please let me know.

Clark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Spicer [mailto:jhs_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 12:58
> To: Jonathan Wakely <cxx_at_[hidden]>
> Cc: Nelson, Clark <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]>; features_at_[hidden]
> std.org <features_at_[hidden]>
> Subject: Re: [SG10] SD-6: ready for C++17?
>
> Me too.
>
> John.
>
>
> On Oct 2, 2017, at 11:45 AM, Jonathan Wakely <cxx_at_[hidden]
> <mailto:cxx_at_[hidden]> > wrote:
>
> Looks good to me.
>
>
>
> On 29 September 2017 at 01:12, Nelson, Clark
> <clark.nelson_at_[hidden] <mailto:clark.nelson_at_[hidden]> > wrote:
>
>
> The pre-Albuquerque mailing is only about two weeks away,
> so I'd better stop sitting on this. Please see:
>
> http://wiki.edg.com/pub/Wg21albuquerque/SG10/sd-6.html
> <http://wiki.edg.com/pub/Wg21albuquerque/SG10/sd-6.html>
>
> My hope is to publish this as P0096R5 in the mailing, and
> then update SD-6 from that, preferably before the meeting (assuming I
> hear no objections).
>
> As always, the change indications are relative to the
> published SD-6. To make it easier to review recent technical changes,
> the relevant papers are listed below.
>
> There's one issue I'd like to specifically point out. For
> the new features added to the filesystem library, Jonathan suggested
> updating the value of __cpp_lib_filesystem to 201703. In what I have
> right now, two out of those three features are indicated by a value
> of 201606, just because that's the actual date of their adoption, and
> only the third is 201703. If there is a consensus that they should
> all be lumped together under a single value, I'll change it, but so
> far there has been only one comment by one person. (And later it
> would be easier for me to erase the distinction than to restore it.)
>
> Would anyone have any issues with this as a new revision
> of SD-6?
>
> Clark
>
> N4230
> N4366
> N4387
> N4510
> P0024
> P0028
> P0032
> P0040
> P0074
> P0127
> P0220
> P0254
> P0283
> P0295
> P0307
> P0336
> P0371
> P0386
> P0394
> P0618
> Transactional Memory
> _______________________________________________
> Features mailing list
> Features_at_[hidden] <mailto:Features_at_[hidden]
> std.org>
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
> <http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Features mailing list
> Features_at_[hidden] <mailto:Features_at_[hidden]
> std.org>
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
>
>