Boost-Commit :

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Subject: [Boost-commit] svn:boost r57307 - sandbox/committee/LWG/cd_status
From: bdawes_at_[hidden]
Date: 2009-11-03 09:49:12

Next message: mario.mulansky_at_[hidden]: "[Boost-commit] svn:boost r57308 - sandbox/odeint/boost/numeric/odeint"
Previous message: hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden]: "[Boost-commit] svn:boost r57306 - trunk/boost/spirit/home/lex"

Author: bemandawes
Date: 2009-11-03 09:49:11 EST (Tue, 03 Nov 2009)
New Revision: 57307
URL: http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/57307

Log:
Apply comments.091106.xml from Mike.
Text files modified:
sandbox/committee/LWG/cd_status/comments.xml | 207 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------
1 files changed, 113 insertions(+), 94 deletions(-)

Modified: sandbox/committee/LWG/cd_status/comments.xml
==============================================================================
--- sandbox/committee/LWG/cd_status/comments.xml (original)
+++ sandbox/committee/LWG/cd_status/comments.xml 2009-11-03 09:49:11 EST (Tue, 03 Nov 2009)
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
<?xml version="1.0"?>

-<document date="2009-10-31"
- rev="2"
- docno="PL22.16 09/0129 = WG21 N2939"
+<document date="2009-11-06"
+ rev="3"
+ docno="PL22.16 09/0199 = WG21 N3009"
>

<comment nb="FR" num="1" uknum="" type="ge" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
@@ -273,7 +273,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="FR" num="5" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="690" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="FR" num="5" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="690" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
<section>
1.3.4
         [defns.
@@ -608,7 +608,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="US" num="16" uknum="" type="" owner="CWG" issue="785" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="16" uknum="" type="" owner="CWG" issue="785" disp="accepted" date="2009-10-24" extdoc="">
<section>
1.9
</section>
@@ -627,7 +627,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="8" uknum="222" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="785" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="UK" num="8" uknum="222" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="785" disp="accepted" date="2009-10-24" extdoc="">
<section>
1.9
</section>
@@ -652,7 +652,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="7" uknum="218" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="785" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="UK" num="7" uknum="218" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="785" disp="accepted" date="2009-10-24" extdoc="">
<section>
1.9
</section>
@@ -692,7 +692,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="US" num="17" uknum="" type="Ge" owner="CWG" issue="786" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="17" uknum="" type="Ge" owner="CWG" issue="786" disp="accepted" date="2009-10-24" extdoc="">
<section>
1.10
</section>
@@ -726,7 +726,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="9" uknum="133" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="787" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="UK" num="9" uknum="133" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="787" disp="modified" date="" extdoc="">
<section>
2.1
</section>
@@ -752,6 +752,11 @@
         character was a back-slash.
</suggestion>
<rationale>
+The undefined behavior with respect to creation of universal character
+names is intended to facilitate a variety of implementation techniques
+for supporting extended characters by making it impossible in a well-defined
+program to determine which technique was actually used. There was no
+consensus to change that approach at this time.
</rationale>
</comment>

@@ -778,7 +783,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="FR" num="10" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="788" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="FR" num="10" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="788" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
<section>
2.1 [lex.phases]/5
         and
@@ -892,7 +897,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="FR" num="12" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="FR" num="12" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
<section>
2.5 [lex.digraph]
and 2.11
@@ -906,7 +911,6 @@
</description>
<suggestion></suggestion>
<rationale>
-The current specification is as intended.
</rationale>
</comment>

@@ -930,7 +934,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="13" uknum="138" type="Ed" owner="CWG" issue="832" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="UK" num="13" uknum="138" type="Ed" owner="CWG" issue="832" disp="accepted" date="2009-10-24" extdoc="">
<section>
2.9
</section>
@@ -1220,7 +1224,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="JP" num="5" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="790" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="5" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="790" disp="accepted" date="2009-10-24" extdoc="">
<section>
2.13.4
</section>
@@ -1327,7 +1331,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="19" uknum="143" type="Ed" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="UK" num="19" uknum="143" type="Ed" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="accepted" date="2009-10-24" extdoc="">
<section>
2.13.4
</section>
@@ -1348,8 +1352,8 @@
         raw-string
</suggestion>
<rationale>
-The Standard is correct as written. The suggestion would change the
-shift/reduce conflicts in the grammar and is thus not editorial.
+The resolution for core language issue 790 effectively implements the suggested
+change.
</rationale>
</comment>

@@ -1441,7 +1445,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="22" uknum="362" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="633" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="UK" num="22" uknum="362" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="633" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
<section>
3
</section>
@@ -1533,7 +1537,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="26" uknum="363" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="570" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="UK" num="26" uknum="363" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="570" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
<section>
3.2
</section>
@@ -1575,7 +1579,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="FR" num="16" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="481" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="FR" num="16" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="481" disp="accepted" date="2009-10-24" extdoc="">
<section>
3.3
         [Declarative
@@ -1778,7 +1782,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="US" num="24" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="792" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="24" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="792" disp="accepted" date="2009-10-24" extdoc="">
<section>
3.6.1
</section>
@@ -1864,7 +1868,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="DE" num="3" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="735" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="DE" num="3" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="735" disp="accepted" date="2009-10-24" extdoc="">
<section>
3.7.4.3
</section>
@@ -1887,7 +1891,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="US" num="26" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="793" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="26" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="793" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
<section>
3.8
</section>
@@ -2001,7 +2005,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="DE" num="4" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="693" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="DE" num="4" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="693" disp="accepted" date="2009-10-24" extdoc="">
<section>
4.2
</section>
@@ -2029,9 +2033,9 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="CH" num="1" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="794" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="CH" num="1" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="794" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
<section>
-4.9
+4.9 and 5.2.9
</section>
<para>
</para>
@@ -2049,11 +2053,13 @@
         explicit conversion the other way around.
</suggestion>
<rationale>
-Section reference should be 4.11 and 5.2.9.
+Section reference should be 4.11 instead of 4.9.
+There was no consensus to make this change at this point in the
+standardization process.
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="DE" num="5" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="731" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="DE" num="5" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="731" disp="accepted" date="2009-10-24" extdoc="">
<section>
4.11,
5.3.1,
@@ -2187,7 +2193,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="JP" num="8" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="743" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="8" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="743" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
<section>
5.1
</section>
@@ -2403,7 +2409,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="US" num="29" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="762" disp="accepted" date="2009-07-18" extdoc="http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2927.html">
+<comment nb="US" num="29" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="762" disp="accepted" date="2009-07-18" extdoc="http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2927.pdf">
<section>
5.1.1
</section>
@@ -2419,7 +2425,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="US" num="30" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="762" disp="accepted" date="2009-07-18" extdoc="http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2927.html">
+<comment nb="US" num="30" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="762" disp="accepted" date="2009-07-18" extdoc="http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2927.pdf">
<section>
5.1.1
</section>
@@ -2438,7 +2444,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="US" num="31" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="752" disp="accepted" date="2009-07-18" extdoc="http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2927.html">
+<comment nb="US" num="31" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="752" disp="accepted" date="2009-07-18" extdoc="http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2927.pdf">
<section>
5.1.1
</section>
@@ -2507,7 +2513,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="39" uknum="408" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="759" disp="accepted" date="2009-07-18" extdoc="http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2927.html">
+<comment nb="UK" num="39" uknum="408" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="759" disp="accepted" date="2009-07-18" extdoc="http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2927.pdf">
<section>
5.1.1
</section>
@@ -2527,7 +2533,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="40" uknum="409" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="796" disp="accepted" date="2009-07-18" extdoc="http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2927.html">
+<comment nb="UK" num="40" uknum="409" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="796" disp="accepted" date="2009-07-18" extdoc="http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2927.pdf">
<section>
5.1.1
</section>
@@ -2553,7 +2559,7 @@
         variables referenced has ended is undefined.
</suggestion>
<rationale>
-Paragraph reference should be 13.
+Paragraph reference should be 13, not 12.
</rationale>
</comment>

@@ -2761,7 +2767,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="US" num="33" uknum="" type="Ge" owner="CWG" issue="680" disp="modified" date="2009-07-18" extdoc="http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2927.html">
+<comment nb="US" num="33" uknum="" type="Ge" owner="CWG" issue="680" disp="modified" date="2009-07-18" extdoc="http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2927.pdf">
<section>
5.1.1
</section>
@@ -2783,7 +2789,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="DE" num="9" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="720" disp="accepted" date="2009-07-18" extdoc="http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2927.html">
+<comment nb="DE" num="9" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="720" disp="accepted" date="2009-07-18" extdoc="http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2927.pdf">
<section>
5.1.1
</section>
@@ -2932,7 +2938,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="DE" num="10" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="731" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="DE" num="10" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="731" disp="accepted" date="2009-10-24" extdoc="">
<section>
5.2.5
</section>
@@ -3078,7 +3084,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="55" uknum="236" type="Ed" owner="CWG" issue="799" disp="" date="2009-03-06" extdoc="http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2841.html">
+<comment nb="UK" num="55" uknum="236" type="Ed" owner="CWG" issue="799" disp="accepted" date="2009-03-06" extdoc="http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2841.html">
<section>
5.2.10
</section>
@@ -3100,8 +3106,8 @@
</suggestion>
<rationale>
The repetition of the reference to 5.2.11 was handled as a quasi-editorial
-change. An issue will be opened for the question about casting to the
-same type as the operand.
+change in paper N2841. Issue 799 was opened for the question about casting
+to the same type as the operand.
</rationale>
</comment>

@@ -3128,7 +3134,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="57" uknum="238" type="Ed" owner="CWG" issue="800" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="UK" num="57" uknum="238" type="Ed" owner="CWG" issue="800" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
<section>
5.2.10
</section>
@@ -3148,10 +3154,16 @@
         cast back -- end note]
</suggestion>
<rationale>
+The definition of "safely-derived pointer" is exclusively formulated in
+terms of pointers to dynamically-allocated objects. The conversion between
+function pointers and object pointers is principally intended for use
+with dynamic loading of shared libraries, which has minimal interaction
+with garbage-collected objects. There was no perceived need for the
+Standard to say anything further on this topic.
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="58" uknum="418" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="801" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="UK" num="58" uknum="418" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="801" disp="accepted" date="2009-10-24" extdoc="">
<section>
5.2.11
</section>
@@ -3237,7 +3249,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="70" uknum="420" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="803" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="UK" num="70" uknum="420" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="803" disp="accepted" date="2009-10-24" extdoc="">
<section>
5.3.3
</section>
@@ -3258,7 +3270,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="71" uknum="254" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="804" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="UK" num="71" uknum="254" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="804" disp="accepted" date="2009-10-24" extdoc="">
<section>
5.3.4
</section>
@@ -3475,7 +3487,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="49" uknum="376" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="699" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="UK" num="49" uknum="376" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="699" disp="accepted" date="2009-10-24" extdoc="">
<section>
5.19
</section>
@@ -3503,7 +3515,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="50" uknum="378" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="806" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="UK" num="50" uknum="378" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="806" disp="accepted" date="2009-10-24" extdoc="">
<section>
5.19
</section>
@@ -3674,7 +3686,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="78" uknum="130" type="Te" owner="LWG" issue="1001" disp="modified" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="UK" num="78" uknum="130" type="Te" owner="LWG" issue="1001" disp="modified" date="2009-07-18" extdoc="http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2930.html">
<section>
6.5.4
</section>
@@ -3701,7 +3713,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="79" uknum="445" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="UK" num="79" uknum="445" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="modified" date="2009-07-18" extdoc="http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2930.html">
<section>
6.5.4
</section>
@@ -3727,10 +3739,6 @@
         similarly without requiring <iterator_concepts>.
</suggestion>
<rationale>
-This idea was already considered and rejected, and there was no
-consensus for changing it now. This suggestion would remove
-functionality; with the current definition, a user could provide his/her
-own Range concept for an array with a user-defined type.
</rationale>
</comment>

@@ -3903,7 +3911,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="85" uknum="373" type="Ed" owner="CWG" issue="940" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="UK" num="85" uknum="373" type="Ed" owner="CWG" issue="940" disp="accepted" date="2009-10-24" extdoc="">
<section>
7.1.1
</section>
@@ -3926,7 +3934,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="86" uknum="403" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="809" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="UK" num="86" uknum="403" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="809" disp="accepted" date="2009-10-24" extdoc="">
<section>
7.1.1
</section>
@@ -3950,7 +3958,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="87" uknum="405" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="810" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="UK" num="87" uknum="405" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="810" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
<section>
7.1.1
</section>
@@ -3974,7 +3982,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="US" num="36" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="717" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="36" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="717" disp="accepted" date="2009-10-24" extdoc="">
<section>
7.1.1
</section>
@@ -4021,7 +4029,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="JP" num="12" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="699" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="12" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="699" disp="accepted" date="2009-10-24" extdoc="">
<section>
7.1.5
</section>
@@ -4122,7 +4130,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="89" uknum="377" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="811" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="UK" num="89" uknum="377" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="811" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
<section>
7.1.6.1
</section>
@@ -4285,7 +4293,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="95" uknum="396" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="746" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="UK" num="95" uknum="396" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="746" disp="accepted" date="2009-07-18" extdoc="">
<section>
7.1.6.4
</section>
@@ -4420,7 +4428,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="96" uknum="384" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="628" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="UK" num="96" uknum="384" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="628" disp="accepted" date="2009-03-06" extdoc="">
<section>
7.2
</section>
@@ -4468,9 +4476,11 @@

<comment nb="UK" num="98" uknum="402" type="Te" owner="LWG" issue="1055" disp="modified" date="" extdoc="">
<section>
-7.2 ¶ 5
+7.2
</section>
-<para></para>
+<para>
+5
+</para>
<description>
         It would be
         useful to be able to determine the underlying type of an
@@ -4486,7 +4496,8 @@
</suggestion>
<notes>Correct section is 20.5.6</notes>
<rationale>
-Name of trait changed to underlying_type.>
+Section reference should be 20.5.6 instead of 7.2.
+Name of trait changed to underlying_type.
</rationale>
</comment>

@@ -4618,7 +4629,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="DE" num="12" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="731" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="DE" num="12" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="731" disp="accepted" date="2009-10-12" extdoc="">
<section>
7.3.3
</section>
@@ -4936,7 +4947,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="108" uknum="401" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="816" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="UK" num="108" uknum="401" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="816" disp="accepted" date="2009-07-18" extdoc="">
<section>
7.6.4
</section>
@@ -4957,7 +4968,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="US" num="42" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="817" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="42" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="817" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
<section>
7.6.4
</section>
@@ -5023,7 +5034,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="US" num="43" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="43" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
<section>
8
</section>
@@ -5042,6 +5053,7 @@
         Some simplification is needed.
</suggestion>
<rationale>
+There was no consensus to make a change.
</rationale>
</comment>

@@ -5163,7 +5175,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="DE" num="13" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="732" disp="accepted" date="2009-07-18" extdoc="http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2927.html">
+<comment nb="DE" num="13" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="732" disp="accepted" date="2009-07-18" extdoc="http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2927.pdf">
<section>
8.4
</section>
@@ -5461,7 +5473,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="115" uknum="432" type="Ge" owner="CWG" issue="820" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="UK" num="115" uknum="432" type="Ge" owner="CWG" issue="820" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
<section>
14
</section>
@@ -5491,7 +5503,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="116" uknum="434" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="821" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="UK" num="116" uknum="434" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="821" disp="modified" date="2009-07-18" extdoc="">
<section>
14
</section>
@@ -5624,7 +5636,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="FR" num="29" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="823" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="FR" num="29" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="823" disp="modified" date="" extdoc="">
<section>
14.3
[Template
@@ -5638,6 +5650,10 @@
</description>
<suggestion></suggestion>
<rationale>
+There was no consensus for the suggested change. A problem was discovered
+that literal types with constexpr conversion functions to literal and
+enumeration types were not allowed, and issue 823 was opened to address
+this omission.
</rationale>
</comment>

@@ -5776,7 +5792,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="DE" num="14" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="730" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="DE" num="14" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="730" disp="accepted" date="2009-10-24" extdoc="">
<section>
14.7.3
</section>
@@ -6296,7 +6312,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="130" uknum="32" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="828" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="UK" num="130" uknum="32" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="828" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
<section>
15.1
</section>
@@ -6407,7 +6423,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="UK" num="135" uknum="39" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="829" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="UK" num="135" uknum="39" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="829" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
<section>
15.4
</section>
@@ -6425,6 +6441,9 @@
         called from a constructor or destructor
</suggestion>
<rationale>
+15.5.2 paragraph 1 specifies that <TT>std::unexpected</TT> is called
+“immediately after completing stack unwinding” for the
+function whose <I>exception-specification</I> has been violated.
</rationale>
</comment>

@@ -6756,7 +6775,7 @@
</comment>

<comment nb="JP" num="21" uknum="" type="te" owner="LWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
-<section>21.2, 21.4,
+<section>17 Library 21.2, 21.4,
         27.2, 27.6,
27.7,
27.8.1,
@@ -7337,8 +7356,7 @@
         <BR/>}
</suggestion>
<notes>
-Done. Original section of "17 Library" deleted so that comment will sort as the first actual
-section affected.
+Done.
</notes>
<rationale>
Previously considered; we decided not to do it. We believe it is
@@ -9418,8 +9436,9 @@
</suggestion>
<notes></notes>
<rationale>
-Section reference should be 20.5.7 [meta.trans.other].
-</rationale>Paper N2843 proposes an extension to the [[align]] attribute that further diminishes the need for this template.
+Section reference should be 20.5.7 instead of 20.5.
+Paper N2843 proposes an extension to the [[align]] attribute that further diminishes the need for this template.
+</rationale>
</comment>

<comment nb="US" num="69" uknum="" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
@@ -9597,7 +9616,7 @@
     proposing specific changes, we would be happy to review it at the next
     meeting.</notes>
<rationale>
-Section reference should be 20.5.
+Section reference should be 20.5 instead of 20.6.
All concepts-related text has been removed from the draft.
</rationale>
</comment>
@@ -10058,7 +10077,7 @@
<notes>Agree. Forward to the project editor.
</notes>
<rationale>
-Section reference should be 20.6.12.
+Section reference should be 20.6.12 instead of 20.7.12.
</rationale>
</comment>

@@ -10082,7 +10101,7 @@
paper.
</notes>
<rationale>
-Section reference should be 20.6.12.1.3 [func.bind.bind].
+Section reference should be 20.6.12.1.3 instead of 20.7.12.
</rationale>
</comment>

@@ -10108,7 +10127,7 @@
editor to review the changes.
</notes>
<rationale>
-Section reference should be 20.6.12.1.3 [func.bind.bind].
+Section reference should be 20.6.12.1.3 instead of 20.7.12.1.3.
</rationale>
</comment>

@@ -10133,7 +10152,7 @@
<notes>Agree.
</notes>
<rationale>
-Section reference should be 20.6.12.2.3 [unique.ptr.single.asgn].
+Section reference should be 20.6.12.2.3 instead of 20.7.12.2.3.
</rationale>
</comment>

@@ -10162,7 +10181,7 @@
[memory].
</notes>
<rationale>
-Section reference should be 20.6.13.7 [util.dynamic.safety].
+Section reference should be 20.6.13.7 instead of 20.7.13.7.
</rationale>
</comment>

@@ -10189,13 +10208,13 @@
std::reference_wrapper.
</notes>
<rationale>
-Section reference should be 20.6.16.2 [func.wrap.func].
+Section reference should be 20.6.16.2 instead of 20.7.16.2.
</rationale>
</comment>

<comment nb="US" num="73" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="750" disp="accepted" date="2009-03-06" extdoc="http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2009/n2845.html">
<section>
-20.6.18
+20.7.18
</section>
<para>
</para>
@@ -10235,7 +10254,7 @@
<notes>This requires attention from CWG and/or EWG.
</notes>
<rationale>
-Section reference corrected from 20.7.18.
+Section reference should be 20.6.18 instead of 20.7.18.
</rationale>
</comment>

@@ -10530,7 +10549,7 @@
object.
</notes>
<rationale>
-Section reference should be 20.7.13.6 [util.smartptr.shared.atomic].
+Section reference should be 20.7.13.6 instead of 20.8.13.6.
</rationale>
</comment>

@@ -10586,7 +10605,7 @@
     ([time.traits.is_fp]) are wrong. Forward to project editor.
</notes>
<rationale>
-Section reference should be 20.8.2.1 [time.traits.is_fp].
+Section reference should be 20.8.2.1 instead of 20.9.2.1.
</rationale>
</comment>

@@ -16296,7 +16315,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="US" num="97" uknum="" type="te" owner="LWG" issue="Doc" disp="modified" date="2009-03-06" extdoc="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2009/n2802.html">
+<comment nb="US" num="97" uknum="" type="te" owner="LWG" issue="Doc" disp="modified" date="2009-03-06" extdoc="http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2802.html">
<section>
30.2.1.3
</section>
@@ -17020,7 +17039,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="DE" num="23" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="699" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="DE" num="23" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="699" disp="accepted" date="2009-10-24" extdoc="">
<section>
Annex B
</section>
@@ -17065,7 +17084,7 @@
</rationale>
</comment>

-<comment nb="DE" num="25" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="831" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="DE" num="25" uknum="" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="831" disp="modified" date="2009-10-24" extdoc="">
<section>
Annex B
</section>

Next message: mario.mulansky_at_[hidden]: "[Boost-commit] svn:boost r57308 - sandbox/odeint/boost/numeric/odeint"
Previous message: hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden]: "[Boost-commit] svn:boost r57306 - trunk/boost/spirit/home/lex"

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Boost-Commit list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk