> "5.2.6 N4089: Safe conversions in unique_ptr<T[]> > This considered a fix for a library issue, to remove an unnecessary > restriction;" > > add "is"
Thanks. > "5.2.8 N4190: Removing auto_ptr, random_shuffle(), And Old > <functional> Stuff > ... that uses one of these obsolescent features when it is > available." > > Where does "it" point to? "features"? That doesn't fit grammar- > wise. Specifically, "it" is intended to refer to an obsolescent feature. I disagree that there is a grammar problem, but I'm wondering if it might be clearer if "it is" were omitted from that sentence: ... uses one of these obsolescent features when available. > "5.2.9 N4230: Nested namespace definition > ... it's just makes it somewhat easier to write code" > > remove "'s" Thanks. > > So I'm tempted to suggest that an implementation that has P0074 > should > > define __cpp_lib_transparent_operators to be 201510 in <memory> > *and also* > > <functional>, whereas an implementation that has N3421 but not > P0074 should > > define it to be 201210 in <functional> (only). > > Agreed. Thanks. > > Please reply indicating whether you would like me to update SD-6 > based on > > the attachment, or on P0096R1 from the mailing -- or if you'd > rather I not > > update it at all. (I think that pretty much exhausts the available > > alternatives, unless there's some other very small tweak to be > made.) > > For paper-trail reasons, I'd really like to have SD-6 be a verbatim > copy of some published paper. Specifically, that means you should > apply the fixes from above, publish P0096R2 in the post-meeting > mailing and update SD-6 concurrently with that. Unless you think > the three weeks of delay this entails does major damage. Good point: that is another available alternative, and probably superior. I will follow that plan, unless someone objects. Clark _______________________________________________ Features mailing list [email protected] http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/features
