On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Nelson, Clark <clark.nelson@intel.com> wrote:
Apologies, especially to Ed, for the long silence.

Here is an updated document. I have added __cpp_noexcept as Ed proposed, and
__cpp_forward_decl_enum, as he appears to have proposed. Ed didn't seem to
make any other positive proposals, but I received an independent suggestion
about explicit conversion operators, so I have added it as well.

I note you've added __cpp_lib_removed_* macros for removing library features; I thought the prevailing direction was that we didn't need them (code should be saying "is there a unique_ptr? if so, use it, otherwise use auto_ptr" or similar). Did we reverse that direction, or are these here just for consideration / reference?

I have a slight preference for __cpp_explicit_conversion getting a trailing 's'.
I also received a correction from Agustin Berge about the location
(subclause and header) of __cpp_lib_result_of_sfinae (C++14). The previous
location really was just flat-out wrong -- mea culpa. I'm very interested in
knowing whether any implementer actually went to the trouble to implement
the published recommendation in an unrelated header. If not, maybe we can
just treat this as an erratum and move on.

We seem to be getting diminishing returns of feedback from the reflector, so
I think we're approaching a point where we should have a teleconference to
try to get stuff settled.

>From my perspective, our next opportunity to meet would be February 23, but
there's a LWG meeting in Germany that week. Is there anyone who might attend
SG10 who will be attending that instead?

If that day wouldn't be good, then we're probably looking at either March 9
(a Canadian holiday) or 23.

I think either of these dates works for me.