Please see below. LWG is doing a prioritisation poll on this library issue.
If you have an opinion here, please participate in the thread, especially
if you feel that the proposed resolution is wrong (otherwise we might
fast-track it to Tentatively Ready).



---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Tim Song via Lib <lib_at_[hidden]>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2021, 13:46
Subject: Re: [isocpp-lib] Issue 3621: Remove feature-test macro
__cpp_lib_monadic_optional
To: Library Working Group <lib_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Tim Song <t.canens.cpp_at_[hidden]>


Should we ask SG10 to weigh in? I'm not sure we have any guidelines on
bumping vs new macro.


On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 8:32 AM Jonathan Wakely via Lib
<lib_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> It's Monday, so it must be bug prioritization time!
> Thanks to everyone who participates.
>
> https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3621
>
> Priority levels:
> P0 - Has a proposed resolution and that resolution is clearly correct.
Requires unanimity among the people doing prioritization. Move the issue to
"Tentatively Ready" or "Ready" (whichever is appropriate for the group
doing the review); we don't want to spend any more time discussing this
issue. [Shortened: Approve, and move on.]
> P1 - Showstopper bug; don't ship a standard w/o resolving this.
> P2 - Important bug.
> P3 - Normal bug.
> P4 - Less important bug.
>
> The most common priority should be P3.
>
> Please add your comments to this thread.
> _______________________________________________
> Lib mailing list
> Lib_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/lib
> Searchable archives: http://lists.isocpp.org/lib/2021/11/index.php
_______________________________________________
Lib mailing list
Lib_at_[hidden]
Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/lib
Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/lib/2021/11/20889.php