Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2024 12:26:07 +0100
On 21/11/2024 00.46, mauro russo via Std-Discussion wrote:
> Well, then I don't fill that bad in considering that this clause from C++20 should have be improved.
C++23 is the currently released standard (see iso.org), and
any questions should refer to that standard or to a later working
draft, as available in the mailings archived at
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/ .
If, due to exceptional circumstances, you need to ask a question
about a prior standard, please highlight that in the title of your
question and give a rationale why we should bother about a withdrawn
standard.
Further, if you wish to ask a question, please ask the question,
and don't refer to web sites on the Internet where you might
have posted that question. I won't bother following links
just to understand what your question is.
Jens
> Well, then I don't fill that bad in considering that this clause from C++20 should have be improved.
C++23 is the currently released standard (see iso.org), and
any questions should refer to that standard or to a later working
draft, as available in the mailings archived at
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/ .
If, due to exceptional circumstances, you need to ask a question
about a prior standard, please highlight that in the title of your
question and give a rationale why we should bother about a withdrawn
standard.
Further, if you wish to ask a question, please ask the question,
and don't refer to web sites on the Internet where you might
have posted that question. I won't bother following links
just to understand what your question is.
Jens
Received on 2024-11-21 11:26:13