On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 6:01 PM David Stone via Ext <ext_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 5:14 AM Bryce Adelstein Lelbach aka wash via
> Modules <modules_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> As I recall, we did not have consensus to evolve the ABI at Prague.
>>
>
> As a reminder, these were the polls:
> [...]
>
> 3. From now on, we should consider incremental ABI for every C++ release
> SF F N A SA
> 98 35 6 0 2
>
> Consensus
>

Could someone who was there, please tell me what this poll's text means?
What does "consider incremental ABI" mean?

–Arthur

P.S. — Back on the question of "how should a modularized STL look,"
personally I think that's an area that should be pioneered by practitioners
— library-writers and library vendors — not by ISO on paper. Are the
libstdc++ and libc++ communities actually investing in an attempt to
deliver a modular STL? If they're not, is it just for lack of manpower? Is
any third party currently working on a modular STL, the way we saw third
parties working on `fmt` and `range-v3` and ASIO and Boost?