On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 at 04:43, Arthur O'Dwyer via Ext
<ext_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> As a reminder, these were the polls:
>> [...]
>>
>> 3. From now on, we should consider incremental ABI for every C++ release
>>
>> SFFNASA
>> 9835602
>>
>> Consensus
>
>
> Could someone who was there, please tell me what this poll's text means?
> What does "consider incremental ABI" mean?

Missing a word, should be incremental ABI breaks.

> 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.

There are no changes to C++ that are done by "ISO on paper". In case
you have a message you wish to
get across, I recommend paying attention to the precision of how you express it.

>Are the libstdc++ and libc++ communities actually investing in an attempt to deliver a modular STL?

Yes.