Sounds good to me!

John.

> On Jun 12, 2019, at 5:03 PM, Jonathan Wakely <cxx_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2019 at 21:50, John Spicer <jhs_at_[hidden] <mailto:jhs_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
> The process for fixing things like this is not well defined right now.
>
> In general, the feature test stuff is supposed to be part of the CWG/LWG process.
>
> For fixing things that were missed earlier, I did a paper for a few of those recently.
>
> How would folks like this handled? It could be an LWG issue, or I can write a short paper with this proposed resolution.
>
>
> My preference is an LWG issue. It can probably get approved by email, and be on the "Ready" list going into Cologne. That should take up less LWG time during the meeting, and less of your time :-)
>
>
>
>
> John.
>
>
> > On Jun 12, 2019, at 3:58 PM, Jonathan Wakely <cxx_at_[hidden] <mailto:cxx_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
> >
> > There are parallel overloads of algorithms in <memory>, so it should define the macro. Also, <execution> defines the exec policies for use with the algos, so that should define the macro too.
> >
> > Proposed resolution:
> >
> > In [support.limits.general] add <memory> and <execution> to the table row for __cpp_lib_parallel_algorithm.
> >
> >
> > | __cpp_lib_parallel_algorithm |
> > | 201603L |
> > | <algorithm> <INS><execution> <memory</INS> <numeric> |
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Features mailing list
> > Features_at_[hidden] <mailto:Features_at_[hidden]>
> > http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features <http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features>
>