Subject: Re: [SG10] Where SG10 and SD-6 should go from here
From: Jens Maurer (Jens.Maurer_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-14 15:26:21
On 10/14/2018 08:01 PM, John Spicer wrote:
> There have been some questions about what role, if any, SG10 should have now that feature test macros are in the IS.
> My personal opinion is that there would be some value in maintaining SD-6 going forward so that we could have in one document a complete picture of the macro names and their values.
> For example, if you look in the current working draft, it says that the value of _cpp_constexpr should be 201603L.
> SD-6 provides the additional guidance that in C++14, it should be 201304, and in C++11 it should be 200704.
> It is also possible that new language features could have more than one value during the production of a given standard cycle.
> Perhaps we should have a short meeting in San Diego to discuss this?
I'd suggest to meet Tuesday over lunch. Last I heard, we have sponsored
lunch at the hotel, so we should quickly find a spot to sit down.
Meeting during regular meeting hours would likely deprive CWG of quorum.
SG10 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com