On 02/20/2014 01:29 PM, Nelson, Clark wrote:
I have attached a new draft of our recommendations, which at least starts
to take into account what has happened since Chicago. We need to talk about
it. I haven't yet heard any objection to meeting on March 17.

I am also thinking of putting a document into the post-meeting mailing,
with tables for the TSpecs like we have for C++14, just to give people some
kind of starting point. I will distribute that for SG10 comment next week.
We won't have an opportunity for a telecon before finalizing it, but since
the main goal of the document is just to get onto WG agendas in Rapperswil,
hopefully that won't be a problem.

--
Clark Nelson            Vice chair, PL22.16 (ANSI C++ standard committee)
Intel Corporation       Chair, SG10 (C++ SG for feature-testing)
clark.nelson@intel.com  Chair, CPLEX (C SG for parallel language extensions)


_______________________________________________
Features mailing list
Features@isocpp.open-std.org
http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features

Shouldn't __cpp_lib_shared_mutex be in the <shared_mutex> header rather than the <mutex> header?