<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Nelson, Clark <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:clark.nelson@intel.com" target="_blank">clark.nelson@intel.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Apologies, especially to Ed, for the long silence.<br>
<br>
Here is an updated document. I have added __cpp_noexcept as Ed proposed, and<br>
__cpp_forward_decl_enum, as he appears to have proposed. Ed didn't seem to<br>
make any other positive proposals, but I received an independent suggestion<br>
about explicit conversion operators, so I have added it as well.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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?<br></div><div><br></div><div>I have a slight preference for __cpp_explicit_conversion getting a trailing 's'.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I also received a correction from Agustin Berge about the location<br>
(subclause and header) of __cpp_lib_result_of_sfinae (C++14). The previous<br>
location really was just flat-out wrong -- mea culpa. I'm very interested in<br>
knowing whether any implementer actually went to the trouble to implement<br>
the published recommendation in an unrelated header. If not, maybe we can<br>
just treat this as an erratum and move on.<br>
<br>
We seem to be getting diminishing returns of feedback from the reflector, so<br>
I think we're approaching a point where we should have a teleconference to<br>
try to get stuff settled.<br>
<br>
>From my perspective, our next opportunity to meet would be February 23, but<br>
there's a LWG meeting in Germany that week. Is there anyone who might attend<br>
SG10 who will be attending that instead?<br>
<br>
If that day wouldn't be good, then we're probably looking at either March 9<br>
(a Canadian holiday) or 23.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think either of these dates works for me. </div></div></div></div>