> Furthermore, since we usually are in the business of standardizing
> things
> that users otherwise have to write many times themselves: Has SG10
> considered actively defining a <std-forward-compat> header library
> that does
> the above for all the things it can, the idea being that users who
> have to
> target multiple implementations at various stages of conformance can
> include
> <std-forward-compat> after all their standard library's own headers
> and
> write their code more closely against the actual latest IS's std::
> library,
> without having to reinvent the above by hand (incompatibly on
> different
> systems), as a transition tool to help encourage people to adopt the
> latest
> standard?

That's a very interesting idea, but might it make more sense for it to be done by LWG, as opposed to SG10?

Clark