Boost logo

Boost-Commit :

Subject: [Boost-commit] svn:boost r64982 - sandbox/committee/LWG/FCD
From: bdawes_at_[hidden]
Date: 2010-08-24 09:03:11


Author: bemandawes
Date: 2010-08-24 09:03:05 EDT (Tue, 24 Aug 2010)
New Revision: 64982
URL: http://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/64982

Log:
Apply Mike's CWG and "editor" changes for the post-Rapperswil mailing
Text files modified:
   sandbox/committee/LWG/FCD/comments.xml | 1110 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------
   1 files changed, 610 insertions(+), 500 deletions(-)

Modified: sandbox/committee/LWG/FCD/comments.xml
==============================================================================
--- sandbox/committee/LWG/FCD/comments.xml (original)
+++ sandbox/committee/LWG/FCD/comments.xml 2010-08-24 09:03:05 EDT (Tue, 24 Aug 2010)
@@ -1,11 +1,11 @@
 <?xml version="1.0"?>
 
-<document date="2010-08-12"
+<document date="2010-08-23"
   rev="0"
- docno="PL22.16 10/xxxx = WG21 Nyyyy"
+ docno="PL22.16 10/0108 = WG21 N3118"
>
 
-<comment nb="ITTF" num="1" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="ITTF" num="1" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 General
 </section>
@@ -109,11 +109,11 @@
 other threads. Possibly use the word &#8220;should&#8221; if
 an absolute requirement is impossible.
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="4" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="4" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 all
 </section>
@@ -128,11 +128,11 @@
 <suggestion>
 Protect all identifiers against hyphenation.
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>Typesetting (i.e., not done until FDIS production).</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="5" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="5" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 all
 </section>
@@ -146,9 +146,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+Some PDF viewers do this. Don't know why, or how to avoid it.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="6" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="6" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 various
 </section>
@@ -167,7 +168,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="7" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="7" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 various
 </section>
@@ -187,7 +188,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="1" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="1" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 1.1
 </section>
@@ -206,7 +207,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="2" type="Ge" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="2" type="Ge" owner="editor" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 1.2
 </section>
@@ -230,7 +231,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="ITTF" num="2" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="ITTF" num="2" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 1.2
 </section>
@@ -254,7 +255,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="ITTF" num="3" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="ITTF" num="3" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 1.3
 </section>
@@ -270,7 +271,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="ITTF" num="4" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="ITTF" num="4" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 1.3
 </section>
@@ -291,7 +292,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="ITTF" num="5" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="ITTF" num="5" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 1.3
 </section>
@@ -308,11 +309,11 @@
 can replace the term in context (i.e. they should
 not be more than one sentence).
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="ITTF" num="6" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="ITTF" num="6" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 1.3
 </section>
@@ -328,7 +329,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="ITTF" num="7" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="ITTF" num="7" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 1.3
 </section>
@@ -349,7 +350,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="3" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="3" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 1.3
 </section>
@@ -367,7 +368,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="15" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="15" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 1.3
 </section>
@@ -389,7 +390,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="4" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="4" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 1.3.10
 </section>
@@ -405,7 +406,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="RU" num="1" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="RU" num="1" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 1.7
 </section>
@@ -440,11 +441,11 @@
 <suggestion>
 [Need to identify a better example to propose]
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="6" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="6" type="Ed" owner="CWG" issue="1102" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 1.9
 </section>
@@ -480,11 +481,11 @@
 <suggestion>
 Clarify it.
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="7" type="Te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="7" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="1173" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 1.9.6
 </section>
@@ -522,11 +523,13 @@
 of these two categories that is modified by the
 handler becomes undefined.
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
+The reference should be 1.9 paragraph 6, not 1.9.6 (which does
+not exist).
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="8" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="8" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 1.9
 </section>
@@ -545,6 +548,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+The statement involved is non-normative and is, in general, correct.
+An implementation can treat overloaded operators as associative or
+commutative only under the &#8220;as-if&#8221; rule, so the statement
+is clear enough.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
 <comment nb="CA" num="23" type="Te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
@@ -564,7 +571,7 @@
 Add back compatibility between C++0x and C1x
 atomics
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
@@ -593,10 +600,10 @@
 Hans):
 <PRE>
 atomic&lt; atomic&lt;int&gt; * &gt; p
-f() |
-{ atomic&lt;int&gt;x; | W_na x
-p.store(&amp;x,mo_rlx); | W_rlx p=&amp;x
-} |
+f() |
+{ atomic&lt;int&gt;x; | W_na x
+ p.store(&amp;x,mo_rlx); | W_rlx p=&amp;x
+} |
 </PRE>
 (where na is nonatomic and rlx is relaxed). We suspect
 also that no other mixed atomic/nonatomic access to the
@@ -612,7 +619,7 @@
 writes to atomic objects, for example
 on initialization and renitialization. - end note]
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
@@ -663,7 +670,7 @@
 that performed the release, or<BR/>
 - is an atomic read-modify-write
 operation.</suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
@@ -682,7 +689,7 @@
 Change "operations on locks" to "locking
 operations".
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
@@ -710,17 +717,17 @@
 modification order.
 <PRE>
 a:Wrlx x=1 b:Wrlx x=2
-\ /
-sb\ /sb
-\ /
-c:Wrel y-----------
-\sw
-\
-d:Racq y
-|
-|sb
-|
-e:Rrlx x=?
+ \ /
+ sb\ /sb
+ \ /
+ c:Wrel y-----------
+ \sw
+ \
+ d:Racq y
+ |
+ |sb
+ |
+ e:Rrlx x=?
 </PRE>
 |
 Paul&gt; In that case IIRC, the standard does not specify<BR/>
@@ -771,7 +778,7 @@
 <suggestion>
 Please clarify.
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
@@ -791,14 +798,14 @@
 coherence, but that the current text allows it. We don't
 know whether it should be allowed or not.
 <PRE>
-hb
-do
-rf
+ hb
+ do
+ rf
 Wx_release ----&gt; Rx_consume
-^ |
-\ |sb,hb
-mo \ v
---- Wx_release
+ ^ |
+ \ |sb,hb
+ mo \ v
+ --- Wx_release
 </PRE>
 Paul claims this is forbidden by 1.10p5, but we don't see
 how that can be the case. We don't see much room in
@@ -842,7 +849,7 @@
 <suggestion>
 Please clarify.
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
@@ -865,7 +872,7 @@
 <suggestion>
 Please clarify.
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
@@ -917,7 +924,7 @@
 dependency-ordered before X and
 X carries a dependency to B.
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
@@ -941,11 +948,11 @@
 Remove the word "subsequent" from the definition
 of visible sequence of side effects in 1.10p12.
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="CA" num="17" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="CA" num="17" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 1.10p12
 </section>
@@ -963,8 +970,15 @@
 "...as defined here..." should be
 "...as defined below...".
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
+The reference really should be to "data races as defined
+in this International Standard", because the note compares
+this definition with the generally-understood meaning of
+data races in sequentially-consistent executions. That's
+far too stilted, and "as defined here" seems like a
+reasonable way to phrase it in the less formal context of
+a note.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
 <comment nb="CA" num="13" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
@@ -1026,7 +1040,7 @@
 follows X in the modification order
 of M."
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
@@ -1123,7 +1137,7 @@
 "in a visible sequence of M with
 respect to B"
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
@@ -1147,7 +1161,7 @@
 not-identical, memory locations)</ins>, and neither
 happens before the other.
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
@@ -1164,7 +1178,7 @@
 <suggestion>
 Change "lock" when used as a noun to "mutex".
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
@@ -1183,7 +1197,7 @@
 Proposed change in N3074:
 http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2010/n3074.html
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
@@ -1274,7 +1288,7 @@
 written&#8221; by the last lock release on the same
 mutex. &#8212;end note ]"
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
@@ -1292,7 +1306,7 @@
 Request the concurrency working group to
 determine if changes are needed
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
@@ -1332,7 +1346,7 @@
 Request the concurrency working group to
 determine if changes are needed
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
@@ -1350,9 +1364,9 @@
 clear should be forbidden, e.g.
 <PRE>
 Rx_consume&lt;--+ +--&gt;Ry_consume
-| rf\ /rf |
-|sb X |sb
-v / \ v
+| rf\ /rf |
+|sb X |sb
+v / \ v
 Wy_release---+ +---Wx_release
 </PRE>
 One could instead impose acyclicity on
@@ -1364,7 +1378,7 @@
 "The inter-thread happens-before relation of an
 execution must be acyclic"
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
@@ -1411,7 +1425,7 @@
 Request the concurrency working group to
 determine if changes are needed
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
@@ -1441,7 +1455,7 @@
 Request the concurrency working group to
 determine if changes are needed
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
@@ -1467,7 +1481,7 @@
 Request the concurrency working group to
 determine if changes are needed
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
@@ -1488,7 +1502,7 @@
 Request the concurrency working group to
 determine if changes are needed.
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
@@ -1504,11 +1518,11 @@
 Request the concurrency working group to
 determine if changes are needed.
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="16" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="16" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 1.10
 </section>
@@ -1522,11 +1536,15 @@
 "...as defined here..." should be "...as defined
 below...".
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
+"As defined here" refers to this standard, which is the
+intention. If it were normative text the correct phrase
+would be "in this International Standard", but for a note,
+the text as written is sufficient.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="13" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="13" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1103" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 2.2
 </section>
@@ -1544,7 +1562,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="14" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="14" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1103" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.14.5
 </section>
@@ -1571,13 +1589,13 @@
 sentiment:<BR/>
 const char str[] = R"#()??=")#";</LI></UL>
 Change in [lex.string] from N3077:<BR/>
-Escape sequences and universal-characternames
+Escape sequences and universal-character-names
 in non-raw string literals have the same
 meaning as in character literals ....<BR/>
 should be reflected in [lex.phases] paragraph 1, phase 5
 (CD2 wording):<BR/>
-Each source character set member and universalcharacter-
-name in a character literal or a string literal, as
+Each source character set member and universal-character-name
+in a character literal or a string literal, as
 well as each escape sequence in a character literal or a
 non-raw string literal, is converted to the corresponding
 member of the execution character set (2.14.3, 2.14.5); if
@@ -1585,11 +1603,11 @@
 implementation-defined member other than the null (wide)
 character<BR/>
 and [lex.charset] paragraph 2 (CD2 wording):<BR/>
-Additionally, if the hexadecimal value for a universalcharacter-
-name outside the <I>c-char-sequence</I>, <I>s-charsequence</I>,
+Additionally, if the hexadecimal value for a universal-character-name
+outside the <I>c-char-sequence</I>, <I>s-char-sequence</I>,
 or <I>r-char-sequence</I> of a character or string
 literal corresponds to a control character (in either of the
-ranges 0x000x1F or 0x7F0x9F, both inclusive) or to a
+ranges 0x00-0x1F or 0x7F-0x9F, both inclusive) or to a
 character in the basic source character set, the program is
 ill-formed.<BR/>
 UCNs simply do not occur in the grammar for r-char-sequence
@@ -1644,8 +1662,8 @@
 In 2.2 [lex.phases] paragraph 1, phase 5:<BR/>
 Each source character set member in a
 character literal or a string literal, as well
-as each escape sequence and universalcharacter-
-name in a character literal or a
+as each escape sequence and universal-character-name
+in a character literal or a
 non-raw string literal, is converted to the
 corresponding member of the execution
 character set (2.14.3, 2.14.5); if there is
@@ -1680,8 +1698,7 @@
 raw string literal and any
 transformations performed in
 phases 1 and 2 on this input
-stream (trigraphs, universalcharacter-
-names, and line
+stream (trigraphs, universal-character-names, and line
 splicing) are reverted for the
 remainder of the stream until
 said raw string literal (2.14.5) is
@@ -1707,7 +1724,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="15" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="15" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1104" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 2.6
 </section>
@@ -1727,7 +1744,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="CA" num="24" type="Te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="CA" num="24" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="1105" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 2.11
 </section>
@@ -1769,7 +1786,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="17" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="17" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 2.14.2
 </section>
@@ -1793,7 +1810,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="16" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="16" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 2.14.3
 </section>
@@ -1813,7 +1830,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="RU" num="2" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="RU" num="2" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 2.14.3
 </section>
@@ -1831,7 +1848,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="DE" num="2" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="DE" num="2" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 2.14.4
 </section>
@@ -1847,9 +1864,11 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+There was no consensus to adopt this feature at this point in the
+standardization process.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="16" type="ge" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="16" type="ge" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 2.14.5 [lex.string]
 </section>
@@ -1864,9 +1883,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+The feature has been implemented.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="DE" num="3" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="DE" num="3" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1106" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 2.14.7
 </section>
@@ -1884,7 +1904,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="RU" num="5" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="RU" num="5" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 2.14.7
 </section>
@@ -1897,11 +1917,11 @@
 <suggestion>
 Move footnote 24 from page 28 to page 27
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>Typesetting, i.e., not done until FDIS production.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="17" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="17" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1107" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 2.14.8
 </section>
@@ -1930,7 +1950,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="17" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="17" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 2.14.8
 </section>
@@ -1950,7 +1970,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="18" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="18" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 2.14.8
 </section>
@@ -1970,7 +1990,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="18" type="ge" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="18" type="ge" owner="CWG" issue="1108" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 2.24.8 [lex.ext]
 </section>
@@ -1985,9 +2005,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+(Reference should be to 2.14.8, not 2.24.8.)
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="19" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="19" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1109" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 3
 </section>
@@ -2010,7 +2031,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="20" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="20" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 3.1
 </section>
@@ -2027,7 +2048,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="21" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="21" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 3.1
 </section>
@@ -2044,7 +2065,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="22" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="22" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1110" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 3.2
 </section>
@@ -2063,9 +2084,12 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+The premise is incorrect: it is the function call, not <TT>decltype</TT>,
+that requires a complete type. Changing this behavior would require
+too much invention at this point in the standardization process.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="19" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="19" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 3.2
 </section>
@@ -2090,7 +2114,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="20" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="20" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 3.3.2
 </section>
@@ -2115,7 +2139,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="23" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="23" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1111" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 3.4.5
 </section>
@@ -2135,7 +2159,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="24" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="24" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1112" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 3.5
 </section>
@@ -2156,7 +2180,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="DE" num="4" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="DE" num="4" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1113" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 3.5
 </section>
@@ -2178,7 +2202,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="DE" num="5" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="DE" num="5" type="te" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 3.7.3
 </section>
@@ -2196,7 +2220,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="RU" num="3" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="RU" num="3" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 3.7.4.3
 </section>
@@ -2214,7 +2238,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="RU" num="4" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="RU" num="4" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 3.7.4.3
 </section>
@@ -2232,7 +2256,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="18" type="Te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="18" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="1114" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 3.8
 </section>
@@ -2244,7 +2268,7 @@
 reflects the result of the placement new.
 If the intended placement operator new is supposed to be
 the one given by the standard library
-,by including , the example is ill-formed as the placementnew
+,by including , the example is ill-formed as the placement-new
 expression &amp;b is const B*
 which doesn't implicitly convert to void*.
 </description>
@@ -2258,7 +2282,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="25" type="Te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="25" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="1115" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 3.11
 </section>
@@ -2273,7 +2297,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="26" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="26" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 3.7.4, 5.3.5, 12.5, 17.6.3.6, 18.6
 </section>
@@ -2293,9 +2317,11 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+There was no consensus for making the suggested change at this
+point in the standardization process.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="27" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="27" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1116" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 3.8
 </section>
@@ -2319,7 +2345,7 @@
 statement well-defined. If this is well-defined, compilers
 are significantly limited in the assumptions they can make
 about type aliasing. On the other hand, the variant where
-U has an array of unsigned char member must be welldefined
+U has an array of unsigned char member must be well-defined
 in order to support std::aligned_storage.
 </description>
 <suggestion>
@@ -2335,7 +2361,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="28" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="28" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 4.4
 </section>
@@ -2352,9 +2378,11 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+There was no consensus for adding this feature at this point in the
+standardization process.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="FI" num="7" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="FI" num="7" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 4.11 [conv.mem], 5.2.9 [expr.static.cast]
 </section>
@@ -2377,9 +2405,11 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+There was no consensus for making this change at this point in the
+standardization process.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="CH" num="3" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="CH" num="3" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 4.11 and 5.2.9
 </section>
@@ -2399,9 +2429,11 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+There was no consensus for making this change at this point in the
+standardization process.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="21" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="21" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 4.13
 </section>
@@ -2426,7 +2458,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="1" type="TL" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="1" type="TL" owner="CWG" issue="1117" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 5
 </section>
@@ -2452,7 +2484,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="FI" num="8" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="FI" num="8" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 5.1.2 [expr.prim.lambda]
 </section>
@@ -2468,9 +2500,11 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+There was no consensus for making the suggested change at this point
+in the standardization process.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="CH" num="4" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="CH" num="4" type="ed" owner="CWG" issue="1062" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 5.1.2
 </section>
@@ -2495,7 +2529,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="CH" num="5" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="CH" num="5" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 5.1.2
 </section>
@@ -2512,7 +2546,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="29" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="29" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="974" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 5.1.2
 </section>
@@ -2528,9 +2562,12 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+There was no consensus for making the suggested change at this point in
+the standardization process. However, core language issue 974 remains
+open for consideration in a future revision.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="30" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="30" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="975" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 5.1.2
 </section>
@@ -2546,9 +2583,12 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+There was no consensus for making the suggested change at this point in
+the standardization process. However, core language issue 975 remains
+open for consideration in a future revision.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="22" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="22" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 5.1.2
 </section>
@@ -2573,7 +2613,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="CH" num="6" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="CH" num="6" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 5.1.2
 </section>
@@ -2588,9 +2628,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+The comment made no specific suggestions for change.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="19" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="19" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 5.1.2
 </section>
@@ -2624,7 +2665,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="20" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="20" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 5.1.2
 </section>
@@ -2648,7 +2689,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="21" type="Te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="21" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 5.1.2
 </section>
@@ -2669,9 +2710,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+There was no consensus for making the suggested change.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="FI" num="19" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="FI" num="19" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1118" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 5.1.2 [expr.prim.lambda]
 </section>
@@ -2682,7 +2724,7 @@
 &#8220;When the lambda-expression is evaluated, the entities
 that are captured by copy are used to direct-initialize each
 corresponding non-static data member of the resulting
-closure object.&#8221; This apparently means that if the capturedefault
+closure object.&#8221; This apparently means that if the capture-default
 is to copy, entities captured by default, implicitly,
 are copied even in cases where the copy constructors of
 such entities are explicit.
@@ -2697,9 +2739,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+There was no consensus for the suggested change.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="23" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="23" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 5.2.2
 </section>
@@ -2727,7 +2770,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="31" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="31" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1022" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 5.2.9;7.2
 </section>
@@ -2756,7 +2799,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="32" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="32" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1119" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 5.2.5
 </section>
@@ -2786,7 +2829,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="64" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="64" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 5.2.8
 </section>
@@ -2812,7 +2855,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="22" type="Te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="22" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="1120" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 5.2.10
 </section>
@@ -2840,7 +2883,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="33" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="33" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1121" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 5.3.1
 </section>
@@ -2863,7 +2906,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="24" type="Te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="24" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="1122" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 5.3.3
 </section>
@@ -2876,7 +2919,7 @@
 turn, says that size_t is defined in the C standard, which in
 turn says that size_t is defined as the type of the result of
 the sizeof operator!
-The C definition of sizeof returns an implementationdefined
+The C definition of sizeof returns an implementation-defined
 unsigned integer type, recommended not to have
 "an integer conversion rank greater than signed long int,
 unless the implementation supports objects large enough
@@ -2904,11 +2947,11 @@
 Add requirements. See Appendix 1 - Additional
 Details
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="35" type="ge" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="35" type="ge" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 5.3.7
 </section>
@@ -2925,9 +2968,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+The feature has been implemented.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="FI" num="17" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="FI" num="17" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1123" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 5.3.7 [expr.unary.noexcept]
 </section>
@@ -2948,7 +2992,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="2" type="TL" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="2" type="TL" owner="CWG" issue="1124" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 5.5
 </section>
@@ -2967,7 +3011,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="36" type="ge" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="36" type="ge" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 5.19 [expr.const]
 </section>
@@ -2983,9 +3027,12 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+An implementation is in progress and is expected to be complete before
+the publication of the FDIS. Also, this feature is needed in the Standard
+library and thus should not be removed.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="DE" num="7" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="DE" num="7" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 5.19
 </section>
@@ -3005,9 +3052,13 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+The possibility of differing results of calculations is implicit in
+the absence of normative statements constraining their accuracy, so
+no normative change is needed; the existing note is sufficient to
+point out this implication.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="DE" num="8" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="DE" num="8" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1125" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 5.19
 </section>
@@ -3039,7 +3090,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="25" type="Te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="25" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="1126" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 5.19
 </section>
@@ -3068,7 +3119,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="26" type="Te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="26" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="1127" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 5.19
 </section>
@@ -3127,7 +3178,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="37" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="37" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 6.5
 </section>
@@ -3150,9 +3201,11 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+There was no consensus for making the suggested change at this point
+in the standardization process.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="CA" num="3" type="various" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="CA" num="3" type="various" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 Various
 </section>
@@ -3194,11 +3247,11 @@
 Possibly move this and the attached note to
 section 1.9, after p8.
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="69" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="69" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 6.35.1
 </section>
@@ -3222,7 +3275,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="27" type="Te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="27" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 6.5.4p1
 </section>
@@ -3263,9 +3316,12 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+There was no consensus for making the suggested change. Use of iterators
+of different types is incompatible with the Standard library containers
+and with the earlier concepts-based specification.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="CH" num="7" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="CH" num="7" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 6.5.4
 </section>
@@ -3287,9 +3343,14 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+There was no consensus for making the suggested change. The Standard
+needs to specify the meaning of the statement; removing the
+&#8220;equivalent to&#8221; phrasing would leave the feature underspecified.
+Implementations have a good deal of latitude under the &#8220;as-if&#8221;
+rule.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="28" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="28" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 7
 </section>
@@ -3306,7 +3367,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="39" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="39" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1128" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 7.1
 </section>
@@ -3316,10 +3377,10 @@
 <description>
 The current wording is, "The optional attribute-specifier in
 a decl-specifier-seq appertains to the type determined by
-the decl-specifier-seq." However, the rule for declspecifier-
-seq in the grammar is recursive, and the intent is
-for the attribute-specifier to appertain to the top declspecifier-
-seq, not the one in which the attribute-specifier
+the decl-specifier-seq." However, the rule for decl-specifier-seq
+in the grammar is recursive, and the intent is
+for the attribute-specifier to appertain to the top decl-specifier-seq,
+not the one in which the attribute-specifier
 directly appears.
 </description>
 <suggestion>
@@ -3330,7 +3391,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="29" type="Te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="29" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="1129" disp="modified" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 7.1.5
 </section>
@@ -3352,9 +3413,15 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+The premise is not correct: an exception is forbidden only when a
+<TT>constexpr</TT> function is invoked in a context that requires
+a constant expression. Used as an ordinary function, it can throw.
+Instead of changing the default exception specification, the result
+of the <TT>noexcept</TT> operator was changed, based on whether the
+invocation of the function is a constant expression or not.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="40" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="40" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1130" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 7.1.6.2
 </section>
@@ -3381,7 +3448,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="DE" num="9" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="DE" num="9" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1110" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 7.1.6.2
 </section>
@@ -3402,9 +3469,14 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+Changing this would require too much invention at this stage in the
+standardization process. However, core language issue 1110 will remain
+open for possible consideration in a future revision. However, core
+language issue 1110 will remain open for possible consideration in a
+future revision.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="41" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="41" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1131" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 7.1.6.3
 </section>
@@ -3423,14 +3495,13 @@
 </description>
 <suggestion>
 Add the necessary wording to prohibit a
-specialization of a template alias in an elaboratedtype-
-specifier.
+specialization of a template alias in an elaborated-type-specifier.
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="42" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="42" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 7.1.6.4
 </section>
@@ -3448,9 +3519,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+There was no consensus to make the suggested change.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="43" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="43" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 7.6
 </section>
@@ -3471,7 +3543,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="30" type="Te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="30" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 7.6.1
 </section>
@@ -3499,9 +3571,11 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+There was no consensus for reconsidering the previous explicit
+decision of the Committee on this issue.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="23" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="23" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 7.6.1
 </section>
@@ -3527,7 +3601,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="31" type="Te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="31" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="1115" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 7.6.2
 </section>
@@ -3548,7 +3622,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="32" type="Ge" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="32" type="Ge" owner="CWG" issue="1132" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 7.6.3
 </section>
@@ -3570,9 +3644,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+There was no consensus to make the suggested change.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="44" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="44" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1133" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 7.6.5
 </section>
@@ -3598,7 +3673,7 @@
 concerns (e.g., that some existing code may already use
 those words as identifiers) because those concerns have
 already been resolved in other ways in existing practice
-(see below).BR/&gt;
+(see below)<BR/>
 More importantly, this is exactly the abuse of attributes as
 disguised keywords that was objected to and was
 explicitly promised not to happen in order to get this
@@ -3644,7 +3719,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="45" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="45" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 7.6.5
 </section>
@@ -3692,7 +3767,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="46" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="46" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 8.3.2 20.7.6.2
 </section>
@@ -3719,9 +3794,11 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+It is possible to create an array prvalue: an array member of a class
+prvalue is an array prvalue.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="33" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="33" type="Ed" owner="CWG" issue="1130" disp="modified" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 8.3.5
 </section>
@@ -3740,9 +3817,12 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+<TT>thread_local</TT> cannot be used for a parameter. However,
+storage class specifiers do not affect the type, so mentioning
+storage class specifiers was incorrect and has been removed.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="47" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="47" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1134" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 8.4.2
 </section>
@@ -3765,7 +3845,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="34" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="34" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 8.4.2
 </section>
@@ -3790,7 +3870,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="FI" num="1" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="FI" num="1" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1135" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 8.4.2 [dcl.fct.def.default]
 </section>
@@ -3811,7 +3891,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="FI" num="2" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="FI" num="2" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1136" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 8.4.2 [dcl.fct.def.default]
 </section>
@@ -3833,7 +3913,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="FI" num="3" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="FI" num="3" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1137" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 8.4.2 [dcl.fct.def.default]
 </section>
@@ -3855,7 +3935,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="35" type="Te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="35" type="Te" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 8.5.1
 </section>
@@ -3875,7 +3955,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="71" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="71" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 8.5.1
 </section>
@@ -3905,7 +3985,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="72" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="72" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 8.5.1
 </section>
@@ -3939,7 +4019,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="36" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="36" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 8.5.1
 </section>
@@ -3958,7 +4038,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="48" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="48" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1138" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 8.5.3
 </section>
@@ -3989,7 +4069,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="49" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="49" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1139" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 8.5.3
 </section>
@@ -4016,7 +4096,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="37" type="Te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="37" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="1138" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 8.5.3
 </section>
@@ -4078,8 +4158,8 @@
 object so that they may bind to an rvalue ref. Allowing this
 would not affect const T&amp;/T&amp;&amp; overload pairs. But
 it could be potentially useful when writing functions that
-wish to accept a number of rvalue refs to copyable-butnot-
-movable types (such as all C++03 classes with userdefined
+wish to accept a number of rvalue refs to copyable-but-not-movable
+types (such as all C++03 classes with user-defined
 copy constructors), or when writing functions that
 "take apart" a number their arguments in a way that is
 different from a straightforward move (perhaps some
@@ -4109,7 +4189,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="DE" num="10" type="Te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="DE" num="10" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="1138" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 8.5.3
 </section>
@@ -4137,7 +4217,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="50" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="50" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1140" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 9
 </section>
@@ -4158,7 +4238,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="FI" num="16" type="ge" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="FI" num="16" type="ge" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 9 9 9 3.9
 </section>
@@ -4186,9 +4266,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+The current wording is clear enough.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="81" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="81" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 9
 </section>
@@ -4207,7 +4288,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="51" type="ge" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="51" type="ge" owner="CWG" issue="1141" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 9.2 [class.mem]
 </section>
@@ -4223,9 +4304,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+C++/CLI has a very similar feature that has been implemented.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="52" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="52" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1142" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 9.3
 </section>
@@ -4249,7 +4331,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="53" type="ge" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="53" type="ge" owner="CWG" issue="1143" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 9.3.1 [class.mfct.non-static]
 </section>
@@ -4267,7 +4349,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="73" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="73" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 9.3.1
 </section>
@@ -4314,7 +4396,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="54" type="ge" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="54" type="ge" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 9.5 [class.union]
 </section>
@@ -4329,9 +4411,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+The feature has been implemented
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="74" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="74" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 9.5
 </section>
@@ -4364,7 +4447,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="38" type="Te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="38" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="675" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 9.6
 </section>
@@ -4397,9 +4480,12 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+Resolving this question was not deemed essential for this revision of
+the Standard, but core language issue 675 remains open for
+possible consideration in a future revision.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="55" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="55" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 10.3
 </section>
@@ -4470,9 +4556,11 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+It is necessary to be able to calculate the offsets applied to
+covariant return values when only the class definition is available.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="56" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="56" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1144" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 11.3 [class.access.decl]
 </section>
@@ -4489,7 +4577,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="FI" num="4" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="FI" num="4" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1145" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 12.1 [class.ctor]
 </section>
@@ -4522,9 +4610,11 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+There was no consensus to make the suggested change at this point
+in the standardization process.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="FI" num="15" type="ge" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="FI" num="15" type="ge" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 12.3.1
 </section>
@@ -4553,9 +4643,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+The current wording is clear enough.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="57" type="ge" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="57" type="ge" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 12.3.2 [class.conv.fct]
 </section>
@@ -4571,9 +4662,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+The feature has been implemented.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="39" type="Te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="39" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="1146" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 12.4
 </section>
@@ -4596,7 +4688,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="40" type="Te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="40" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="1147" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 12.4
 </section>
@@ -4629,7 +4721,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="CH" num="9" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="CH" num="9" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1147" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 12.4 and 15.4
 </section>
@@ -4647,7 +4739,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="58" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="58" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 12.5
 </section>
@@ -4662,9 +4754,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+Because of the comma later in the sentence, a comma here would be wrong.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="59" type="ge" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="59" type="ge" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 12.6.2 [class.base.init]
 </section>
@@ -4680,9 +4773,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+The feature has been implemented.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="60" type="ge" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="60" type="ge" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 12.8 [class.copy]
 </section>
@@ -4699,9 +4793,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+The feature has been implemented.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="DE" num="11" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="DE" num="11" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1148" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 12.8
 </section>
@@ -4723,7 +4818,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="FI" num="5" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="FI" num="5" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1149" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 12.8 [class.copy]
 </section>
@@ -4751,9 +4846,11 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+There was no consensus to make the suggested change at this point in
+the standardization process.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="41" type="Te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="41" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="1146" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 12.8
 </section>
@@ -4776,7 +4873,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="61" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="61" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 12.8;20.2.5
 </section>
@@ -4789,11 +4886,11 @@
 <suggestion>
 do not hyphenate static_cast
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>Typesetting, i.e., not done until FDIS production.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="62" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="62" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1051" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 12.8
 </section>
@@ -4812,7 +4909,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="63" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="63" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1064" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 12.8
 </section>
@@ -4834,7 +4931,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="64" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="64" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1066" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 12.8
 </section>
@@ -4865,7 +4962,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="65" type="ge" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="65" type="ge" owner="CWG" issue="1150" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 12.9 [class.inhctor]
 </section>
@@ -4883,7 +4980,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="65" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="65" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 13.1
 </section>
@@ -4912,7 +5009,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="66" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="66" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1151" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 13.3.1.7
 </section>
@@ -4931,7 +5028,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="67" type="ge" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="67" type="ge" owner="CWG" issue="1152" disp="modified" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 13.3.2
 </section>
@@ -4952,9 +5049,11 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+The resolution for core language issue 1152 fixes a related problem,
+but a rationale was not deemed necessary at this time.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="75" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="75" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 13.2
 </section>
@@ -4988,7 +5087,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="76" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="76" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 13.2
 </section>
@@ -5022,7 +5121,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="77" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="77" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 13.3.1.2
 </section>
@@ -5064,7 +5163,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="68" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="68" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1153" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 13.4
 </section>
@@ -5085,7 +5184,7 @@
 function under consideration were not
 overloaded.<BR/>
 This question arises for pointer-to-member types, where
-there is an implicit conversion from a pointer-to-basemember
+there is an implicit conversion from a pointer-to-base-member
 to a pointer-to-derived-member, as well as when
 the context is an explicit type conversion (which allows for
 static_cast a conversion from pointer-to-derived-member
@@ -5101,7 +5200,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="82" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="82" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 13.5.8
 </section>
@@ -5120,7 +5219,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="69" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="69" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1154" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 14.3.2
 </section>
@@ -5140,7 +5239,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="DE" num="12" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="DE" num="12" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1155" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 14.3.2
 </section>
@@ -5159,7 +5258,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="78" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="78" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 14.3.2
 </section>
@@ -5188,7 +5287,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="83" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="83" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 14.3.2
 </section>
@@ -5225,7 +5324,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="42" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="42" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 14.5.3
 </section>
@@ -5245,7 +5344,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="24" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="24" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 14.5.3
 </section>
@@ -5270,7 +5369,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="70" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="70" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1156" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 14.5.6.2
 </section>
@@ -5311,7 +5410,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="CA" num="7" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="CA" num="7" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1157" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 14.5.6.2p3
 </section>
@@ -5387,9 +5486,12 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+Resolving this issue was not deemed essential for this revision of
+the Standard. Core language issue 1157 was opened, however, to
+allow for possible consideration for a future revision.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="72" type="ge" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="72" type="ge" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 14.5.7 [temp.alias]
 </section>
@@ -5404,9 +5506,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+The feature has been implemented.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="73" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="73" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1158" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 14.5.7
 </section>
@@ -5439,7 +5542,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="74" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="74" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1159" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 14.5.7
 </section>
@@ -5464,9 +5567,11 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+Definition of a class or enumeration is now prohibited in a template
+alias.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="FI" num="10" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="FI" num="10" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="924" disp="accepted" date="2010-08-07" extdoc="">
 <section>
 14.5.7 [temp.alias]
 </section>
@@ -5482,7 +5587,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="FI" num="11" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="FI" num="11" type="te" owner="editor" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 14.5.7 [temp.alias]
 </section>
@@ -5500,7 +5605,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="25" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="25" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 14.5.7
 </section>
@@ -5513,59 +5618,10 @@
 in the form "Clause X" ("Table X") capitalized, and
 subsection Y.Y.Y is referenced with its number only in the
 form "Y.Y.Y". Whether they are parenthesized or not
-US
-73
-14.5.7 1 te The current wording of 7.1.3p2 requires that the identifier
-in an alias-declaration "...shall not appear in the type-id."
-With template aliases, however, the name of the alias can
-be used indirectly:
-template&lt;typename T&gt; struct A;
-template&lt;typename T&gt; using B=typename A&lt;T&gt;::U;
-template&lt;typename T&gt; struct A {
-typedef B&lt;T&gt; U;
-};
-B&lt;short&gt; b;
-Here the instantiation of B&lt;short&gt; causes the instantiation
-of A&lt;short&gt;, and the typedef in A&lt;short&gt; ends up
-attempting to use B&lt;short&gt;, which is still in the process of
-being instantiated.
-Add wording to indicate that such usages in
-template aliases are ill-formed.
-US
-74
-14.5.7 1 te An alias-declaration allows a class or enumeration type to
-be defined in its type-id (7.1.6p3). However, it's not clear
-that this is desirable when the alias-declaration is part of a
-template alias:
-template&lt;typename T&gt; using A =
-struct { void f(T) { } };
-Either prohibit the definition of classes and
-enumerations in template aliases, or prohibit the
-use of template parameters in such definitions, or
-add an example illustrating this usage.
-FI
-10
-14.5.7
-[temp.alias]
-te Can template aliases be declared in class scope? Allow declaring template aliases in class scope, if
-not allowed by the current grammar.
-FI
-11
-14.5.7
-[temp.alias]
-te We have class templates and function templates,
-shouldn't we call template aliases alias templates for
-consistency?
-Change &#8220;template alias&#8221; -&gt; &#8220;alias template&#8221;
-everywhere.
-JP
-25
-14.5.7 1 E Representations of reference link are not unified.
-Most reference links to clause (table) number, say X, are
-in the form "Clause X" ("Table X") capitalized, and
-subsection Y.Y.Y is referenced with its number only in the
-form "Y.Y.Y". Whether they are parenthesized or not
-Change "(clause 7)" to "(Clause 7)".
+depends on the context.
+However there are some notations "(Z)" consisting of only
+a number Z in parentheses to confer Clause or Table
+number Z.
 </description>
 <suggestion>
 Change "(clause 7)" to "(Clause 7)".
@@ -5574,7 +5630,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="26" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="26" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 14.6.2.1
 </section>
@@ -5599,7 +5655,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="43" type="Te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="43" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="1160" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 14.6.2.1p3
 </section>
@@ -5645,7 +5701,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="44" type="Te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="44" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="1161" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 14.6p5
 </section>
@@ -5664,10 +5720,10 @@
 </description>
 <suggestion>
 Change 14.6/5 to<BR/>
-A qualified name used as the name in a meminitializer-
-id, a base-specifier, an elaborated-typespecifier
-or the nested-name-specifier of a pointerto-
-member declarator is implicitly assumed to
+A qualified name used as the name in a mem-initializer-id,
+a base-specifier, an elaborated-type-specifier
+or the nested-name-specifier of a pointer-to-member
+declarator is implicitly assumed to
 name a type, without the use of the typename
 keyword.
 </suggestion>
@@ -5675,7 +5731,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="CA" num="6" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="CA" num="6" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1162" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 14.6p5
 </section>
@@ -5685,9 +5741,9 @@
 <description>
 Given the change in N1376=02-0034 to [temp.res], found
 in FCD in [temp.res] paragraph 5:<BR/>
-A qualified name used as the name in a meminitializer-
-id, a base-specifier, or an elaboratedtype-
-specifier is implicitly assumed to name a
+A qualified name used as the name in a mem-initializer-id,
+a base-specifier, or an elaborated-type-specifier is
+implicitly assumed to name a
 type, without the use of the typename keyword<BR/>
 the following appears to be well-formed, with templates
 foo() being distinct since any type T will produce an invalid
@@ -5702,10 +5758,10 @@
 </PRE>
 In particular, while determining the signature (1.3.11
 [defns.signature]) for the function templates foo(), an
-elaborated-type-specifier qualifies as part of the declspecifier-
-seq under 8.3.5 [dcl.fct] paragraph 5 in
-determining the type of a parameter in the parametertype-
-list (absent additional wording).
+elaborated-type-specifier qualifies as part of the decl-specifier-seq
+under 8.3.5 [dcl.fct] paragraph 5 in
+determining the type of a parameter in the parameter-type-list
+(absent additional wording).
 Also, the return type is included in the signature of a
 function template.<BR/>
 A portion of the GCC 4.5.0 output:<BR/>
@@ -5733,9 +5789,11 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+The specification is as intended; compilers should handle cases like
+these.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="75" type="TE" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="75" type="TE" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 14.7
 </section>
@@ -5753,9 +5811,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+There was no consensus for making the suggested change.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="79" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="79" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 14.7.1
 </section>
@@ -5801,7 +5860,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="FI" num="9" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="FI" num="9" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 14.7.3 [temp.expl.spec]
 </section>
@@ -5820,9 +5879,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+There was no consensus for making the suggested change.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="80" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="80" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 14.8.1
 </section>
@@ -5862,7 +5922,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="76" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="76" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1163" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 14.8.2
 </section>
@@ -5879,9 +5939,12 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+Section reference should be 14.7.2. The suggested change could result
+in a silent change of meaning between implementations if speculative
+instantiation for inlining is allowed.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="77" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="77" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1164" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 14.8.2.1
 </section>
@@ -5908,7 +5971,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="78" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="78" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1165" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 15.2
 </section>
@@ -5944,7 +6007,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="45" type="Te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="45" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="1166" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 15.3
 </section>
@@ -5952,7 +6015,7 @@
 16
 </para>
 <description>
-The phrasing of this clause suggests all exceptiondeclarations
+The phrasing of this clause suggests all exception-declarations
 produce objects. There should be some
 additional wording to clarify that exception-declarations
 that declare references bind to the exception object by
@@ -5967,6 +6030,9 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+Resolving this issue was not deemed essential for this revision of
+the Standard. However, issue 1166 was opened for possible consideration
+in a future revision.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
 <comment nb="CA" num="5" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
@@ -5996,11 +6062,11 @@
 <suggestion>
 Clarify and fix as suggested.
 </suggestion>
-<notes></notes>
+<notes>For concurrency group.</notes>
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="79" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="79" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 15.4
 </section>
@@ -6020,9 +6086,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+There was no consensus for making the suggested change.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="46" type="Te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="46" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="1167" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 15.4
 </section>
@@ -6043,7 +6110,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="CH" num="10" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="CH" num="10" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 15.4
 </section>
@@ -6061,9 +6128,11 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+There was no consensus to reconsider the explicit decision of the
+Committee on this point.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="47" type="Te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="47" type="Te" owner="CWG" issue="1168" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 15.5.1
 </section>
@@ -6096,7 +6165,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="48" type="Te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="48" type="Te" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 15.5.2
 </section>
@@ -6117,7 +6186,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="49" type="Ge" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="49" type="Ge" owner="CWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 15.5.2
 </section>
@@ -6134,9 +6203,11 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+The convention in the core clauses is to note the deprecation but
+leave the specification <I>in situ</I>.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="CH" num="11" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="CH" num="11" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 16.1
 </section>
@@ -6161,9 +6232,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+The current wording is the same as in C++03, and hasn't caused confusion.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="CH" num="12" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="CH" num="12" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 16.3.5
 </section>
@@ -6190,7 +6262,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="CH" num="13" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="CH" num="13" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 16.3.5
 </section>
@@ -6216,7 +6288,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="CH" num="14" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="CH" num="14" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 16.3.5
 </section>
@@ -6246,7 +6318,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="DE" num="13" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="DE" num="13" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1169" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 16.8
 </section>
@@ -6435,7 +6507,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="66" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="66" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 17-30
 </section>
@@ -6531,7 +6603,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="27" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="27" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 17.1
 </section>
@@ -6608,7 +6680,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="67" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="67" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 17.5.2.1.2
 </section>
@@ -6641,6 +6713,7 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+This is pseudo-code; okay as written.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
 <comment nb="GB" num="53" type="te" owner="LWG" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
@@ -6660,14 +6733,14 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="54" type="Ge" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="54" type="Ge" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 17.5.2.1.4.x
 </section>
 <para></para>
 <description>
-The defined terms NTC16S, NTC32S, NTWCS, char16-
-character sequence, null-terminated char16-character
+The defined terms NTC16S, NTC32S, NTWCS, char16-character
+sequence, null-terminated char16-character
 string, char32-character sequence, null-terminated
 char32-character string, wide-character sequence and
 null-terminated wide-character string do not occur at any
@@ -6790,7 +6863,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="59" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="59" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="modified" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 17.6.3.6
 </section>
@@ -6828,9 +6901,11 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+Cross-reference changed as requested. Additions to name mentions
+not done: these are not declarations.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="81" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="81" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="modified" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 17.6.3.9
 </section>
@@ -6846,6 +6921,7 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+Removed the offending word.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
 <comment nb="US" num="82" type="te" owner="LWG" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
@@ -6866,7 +6942,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="83" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="83" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 17.6.3.10
 </section>
@@ -6907,7 +6983,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="68" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="68" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="modified" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 18.3.1.5
 </section>
@@ -6940,9 +7016,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+Replaced "..." by "value".
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="84" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="84" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 18.5
 </section>
@@ -6965,7 +7042,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="69" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="69" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 18.5
 </section>
@@ -7219,7 +7296,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="77" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="77" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 19.5.6.2
 </section>
@@ -7439,7 +7516,7 @@
 indeterminate value on the left hand side, that does not involve undefined behavior.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="86" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="86" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 20.2.5
 </section>
@@ -7502,7 +7579,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="89" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="89" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 20.3 [utility]
 </section>
@@ -7519,7 +7596,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="81" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="81" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 20.3
 </section>
@@ -7538,7 +7615,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="82" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="82" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 20.3
 </section>
@@ -7607,7 +7684,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="28" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="28" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="modified" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 20.3.1
 </section>
@@ -7630,9 +7707,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+Changed to "(Table 31)".
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="29" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="29" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="modified" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 20.3.1
 </section>
@@ -7655,9 +7733,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+Changed to "(Table 32)".
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="30" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="30" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 20.3.2
 </section>
@@ -7740,7 +7819,7 @@
 <rationale>No consensus for a change.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="94" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="94" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 20.3.3
 </section>
@@ -7783,7 +7862,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="31" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="31" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 20.5.1
 </section>
@@ -7808,7 +7887,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="84" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="84" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 20.3.5.2
 </section>
@@ -8273,7 +8352,7 @@
 <rationale>There is no consensus to adopt this proposal at this time.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="90" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="90" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 20.7
 </section>
@@ -8290,6 +8369,8 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+Type traits support queries about all types, not just
+built-in types. They do not belong in Clause 18.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
 <comment nb="DE" num="17" type="te" owner="LWG" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
@@ -8356,7 +8437,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="91" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="91" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 20.7.4.3
 </section>
@@ -8378,6 +8459,9 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+There is no undefined behavior because the expression
+is an unevaluated operand. It's not at all clear that
+the proposed change would be clearer.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
 <comment nb="GB" num="92" type="te" owner="LWG" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
@@ -8558,7 +8642,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="94" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="94" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 20.8
 </section>
@@ -8699,7 +8783,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="33" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="33" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 20.8.15
 </section>
@@ -8724,7 +8808,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="34" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="34" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 20.8.15
 </section>
@@ -8812,7 +8896,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>No consensus to make this change at this time.
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="98" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="98" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 20.9
 </section>
@@ -8944,7 +9028,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="104" type="te" owner="Editor" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="104" type="Te" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 20.9.5.1
 </section>
@@ -8962,7 +9046,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="105" type="te" owner="Editor" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="105" type="Te" owner="editor" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 20.9.6
 </section>
@@ -8984,6 +9068,7 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes>The Project Editor suggested and the LWG agreed that this comment be treated as editorial</notes>
 <rationale>
+The declaration is identical to the proposed text.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
 <comment nb="US" num="107" type="te" owner="LWG" issue="" disp="accepted" date="2010-08-07" extdoc="">
@@ -9001,7 +9086,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="101" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="101" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 20.9.10
 </section>
@@ -9023,7 +9108,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="FI" num="13" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="FI" num="13" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 20.9.10.
 </section>
@@ -9041,7 +9126,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="102" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="102" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 20.9.10
 </section>
@@ -9055,9 +9140,11 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+[util.smartptr] deals with shared_ptr and weak_ptr,
+which work together. Adding unique_ptr would create a muddle.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="35" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="35" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 20.9.10.2
 </section>
@@ -9082,7 +9169,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="36" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="36" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 20.9.10.2.1
 </section>
@@ -9107,7 +9194,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="37" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="37" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 20.9.10.2.1
 </section>
@@ -9132,7 +9219,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="38" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="38" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 20.9.10.2.3
 </section>
@@ -9294,7 +9381,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="109" type="te" owner="Editor" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="109" type="te" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 20.9.11.2.6
 </section>
@@ -9496,7 +9583,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="39" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="39" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 21.2.2
 </section>
@@ -9521,7 +9608,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="108" type="te" owner="Editor" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="108" type="te" owner="editor" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 21.2.3.1
 </section>
@@ -9565,7 +9652,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="40" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="40" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 21.4
 </section>
@@ -9596,8 +9683,8 @@
 </section>
 <para></para>
 <description>
-data() is the function of choice for calling into legacy 'C'-
-like APIs. Both vector and array designed this function to
+data() is the function of choice for calling into legacy 'C'-like
+APIs. Both vector and array designed this function to
 be callable in a const-correct way while allowing for
 functions that want to use the result to designate a return
 buffer.
@@ -9615,7 +9702,7 @@
 <rationale>No consensus to make this change.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="111" type="te" owner="Editor" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="111" type="te" owner="editor" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 21.5
 </section>
@@ -9645,7 +9732,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="86" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="86" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 21.7
 </section>
@@ -9664,7 +9751,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="87" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="87" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 22.3.1
 </section>
@@ -9685,7 +9772,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="88" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="88" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 22.6
 </section>
@@ -9709,7 +9796,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="89" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="89" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 23.1
 </section>
@@ -9788,7 +9875,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="115" type="te" owner="Editor" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="115" type="te" owner="editor" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 23.2.1
 </section>
@@ -9810,7 +9897,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="116" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="116" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 23.2.1
 </section>
@@ -9832,6 +9919,7 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+The text as is seems quite clear; the proposed note just muddles things.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
 <comment nb="FI" num="12" type="te" owner="LWG" issue="" disp="rejected" date="2010-08-07" extdoc="">
@@ -9862,7 +9950,7 @@
 <rationale>No consensus to make the change.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="90" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="90" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 23.2.3
 </section>
@@ -9883,7 +9971,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="91" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="91" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="modified" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 23.2.5
 </section>
@@ -9904,9 +9992,11 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+The newline is needed, but the space is unnecessary. Removed the
+space.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="92" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="92" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 23.2.5
 </section>
@@ -10019,7 +10109,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="41" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="41" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 23.3.3
 </section>
@@ -10044,7 +10134,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="114" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="114" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="modified" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 23.3.4.1
 </section>
@@ -10060,6 +10150,8 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+The code in question is a remmant from a previous version. It has
+now been removed.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
 <comment nb="GB" num="115" type="te" owner="LWG" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
@@ -10084,7 +10176,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="116" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="116" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 23.3.5
 </section>
@@ -10126,7 +10218,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="93" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="93" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 23.3.5.2
 </section>
@@ -10150,7 +10242,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="117" type="te" owner="Editor" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="117" type="te" owner="editor" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 23.3.6.2
 </section>
@@ -10398,7 +10490,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="94" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="94" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 23.5.2
 </section>
@@ -10497,7 +10589,7 @@
 <rationale>Standard is correct as is.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="42" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="42" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 25.1
 </section>
@@ -10561,7 +10653,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="43" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="43" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 25.3.9
 </section>
@@ -10629,7 +10721,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="44" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="44" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 25.4
 </section>
@@ -10654,7 +10746,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="45" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="45" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 25.4.7
 </section>
@@ -10695,7 +10787,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="123" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="123" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 25.5
 </section>
@@ -10714,7 +10806,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="FI" num="14" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="FI" num="14" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 26.3.1.
 </section>
@@ -10759,7 +10851,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="46" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="46" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 26.5.1.6
 </section>
@@ -10832,7 +10924,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="125" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="125" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 26.5.4.1 [rand.adapt.disc]
 </section>
@@ -10869,7 +10961,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="127" type="ed/te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="127" type="ed/te" owner="editor" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 26.5.4.1
 </section>
@@ -10888,7 +10980,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="128" type="ed/te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="128" type="ed/te" owner="editor" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 26.5.4.3
 </section>
@@ -10907,7 +10999,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="129" type="ed/te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="129" type="ed/te" owner="editor" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 26.5.7.1
 </section>
@@ -10925,7 +11017,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="130" type="ed/te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="130" type="ed/te" owner="editor" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 26.5.7.1
 </section>
@@ -10942,7 +11034,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="131" type="ed/te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="131" type="ed/te" owner="editor" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 26.5.7.1
 </section>
@@ -10964,7 +11056,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="132" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="132" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 26.5.7.1 [rand.util.seedseq]
 </section>
@@ -10982,7 +11074,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="133" type="te" owner="LWG" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="133" type="te" owner="editor" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 26.5.7.1 [rand.util.seedseq]
 </section>
@@ -11062,7 +11154,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="47" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="47" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 26.7.1
 </section>
@@ -11086,7 +11178,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="48" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="48" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 26.7.2
 </section>
@@ -11111,7 +11203,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="49" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="49" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 26.7.4
 </section>
@@ -11468,7 +11560,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="50" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="50" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 28.5.2
 </section>
@@ -11493,7 +11585,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="51" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="51" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 28.5.3
 </section>
@@ -11576,7 +11668,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="52" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="52" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 28.11.2
 </section>
@@ -11601,7 +11693,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="95" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="95" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 28.11.3
 </section>
@@ -11622,7 +11714,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="53" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="53" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 28.11.3
 </section>
@@ -11646,7 +11738,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="54" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="54" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 28.13
 </section>
@@ -11747,7 +11839,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="CA" num="16" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="CA" num="16" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 29.1p1 29.3p8
 </section>
@@ -11772,7 +11864,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="142" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="142" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 29.1
 </section>
@@ -11789,7 +11881,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="143" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="143" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 [atomics.syn] 29.2
 </section>
@@ -11809,7 +11901,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="144" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="144" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 [atomics.syn] 29.2
 </section>
@@ -11832,7 +11924,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="145" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="145" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 29.2
 </section>
@@ -11905,7 +11997,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="146" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="146" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 29.2
 </section>
@@ -11923,7 +12015,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="147" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="147" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 29.2
 </section>
@@ -11942,7 +12034,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="148" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="148" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 29.2
 </section>
@@ -11958,9 +12050,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+No, definitely not implementation defined. "See below "is correct.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="149" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="149" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 29.2
 </section>
@@ -11978,7 +12071,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="150" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="150" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 29.2
 </section>
@@ -11998,7 +12091,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="151" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="151" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 29.2
 </section>
@@ -12017,7 +12110,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="152" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="152" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 29.3
 </section>
@@ -12034,6 +12127,7 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+It's named in the second and fourth bullet items.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
 <comment nb="GB" num="131" type="te" owner="LWG" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
@@ -12088,11 +12182,11 @@
 reads-from edges as below (all this is within a single
 thread).
 <PRE>
-e1 e2
+ e1 e2
 Wrlx y-- --Wrlx x
-rf\ /rf
-X
-/ \
+ rf\ /rf
+ X
+ / \
 Rrlx x&lt;- -&gt;Rrlx y
 </PRE>
 This seems like it should be allowed, but there seems to
@@ -12114,7 +12208,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="153" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="153" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 [atomics.lockfree] 29.4
 </section>
@@ -12133,6 +12227,9 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+Implementation defined requires that the implementation
+document what it does. Removing this requirement would be a
+technical change.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
 <comment nb="US" num="154" type="te" owner="LWG" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
@@ -12153,7 +12250,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="155" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="155" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 29.4
 </section>
@@ -12215,7 +12312,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="156" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="156" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 [atomics.types.integral] 29.5.1
 </section>
@@ -12238,7 +12335,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="55" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="55" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 29.5.1
 </section>
@@ -12313,7 +12410,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="158" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="158" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 29.5.1
 </section>
@@ -12331,7 +12428,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="159" type="Editorial" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="159" type="Editorial" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 29.5.1
 </section>
@@ -12477,7 +12574,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="56" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="56" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 29.5.3
 </section>
@@ -12604,7 +12701,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="166" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="166" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 29.6
 </section>
@@ -12622,7 +12719,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="167" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="167" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 29.6
 </section>
@@ -12638,6 +12735,7 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+Seems to be a duplicate of US 166 but with the wrong section number.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
 <comment nb="US" num="168" type="te" owner="LWG" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
@@ -12660,7 +12758,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="169" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="169" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 29.6
 </section>
@@ -12676,9 +12774,11 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+No, we should not require implementors to document
+the details of how they do this.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="170" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="170" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 29.6
 </section>
@@ -12695,9 +12795,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+The current order reflects the order of declarations. No need to change it.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="134" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="134" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 29.6
 </section>
@@ -12752,14 +12853,14 @@
 para 9, 13, 17, 20
 </para>
 <description>
-The order specifications are incomplete because the non-
-_explicit functions do not have such parameters.
+The order specifications are incomplete because the non-_explicit
+functions do not have such parameters.
 </description>
 <suggestion>
 Add a new sentence: "If the program does not
 specify an order, it shall be
-memory_order_seq_cst." Or perhaps: "The non-
-_explicit non-member functions shall affect
+memory_order_seq_cst." Or perhaps: "The non-_explicit
+non-member functions shall affect
 memory as though they were _explicit with
 memory_order_seq_cst."
 </suggestion>
@@ -12767,7 +12868,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="173" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="173" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 29.6
 </section>
@@ -12785,7 +12886,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="174" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="174" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 29.6
 </section>
@@ -12800,6 +12901,9 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+This would require a significant rewrite, because
+the Returns clause refers to the "result of the comparison"
+from the Effects clause. Okay as written.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
 <comment nb="US" num="175" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
@@ -12844,7 +12948,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="176" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="176" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 29.6
 </section>
@@ -12861,6 +12965,7 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+Okay as written. Two different subjects, two paragraphs.
 </rationale>
 </comment>
 <comment nb="US" num="177" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
@@ -12907,7 +13012,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="" type="te" owner="LWG" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="136" type="Te" owner="LWG" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 29.6
 </section>
@@ -12924,7 +13029,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="178" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="178" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="modified" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 29.7
 </section>
@@ -12943,6 +13048,7 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+Changed "nor" to "or".
 </rationale>
 </comment>
 <comment nb="US" num="179" type="te" owner="LWG" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
@@ -12991,7 +13097,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="180" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="180" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.1
 </section>
@@ -13133,7 +13239,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="98" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="97" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.3.1.5
 </section>
@@ -13154,7 +13260,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="99" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="98" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.3.1.5
 </section>
@@ -13287,7 +13393,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="99" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="99" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.4.1
 </section>
@@ -13327,7 +13433,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="187" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="187" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="modified" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.4.1
 </section>
@@ -13344,9 +13450,10 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+Changed <TT>compare_exchange</TT> to "compare and exchange".
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="57" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="57" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.4.1
 </section>
@@ -13388,7 +13495,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="58" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="58" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.4.1.1
 </section>
@@ -13439,7 +13546,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="59" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="59" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.4.1.2
 </section>
@@ -13464,7 +13571,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="60" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="60" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.4.2.1
 </section>
@@ -13489,7 +13596,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="61" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="61" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.4.2.2
 </section>
@@ -13514,7 +13621,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="70" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="70" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.4.3.2
 </section>
@@ -13536,7 +13643,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="100" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="100" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.4.3.2.2
 </section>
@@ -13577,7 +13684,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="101" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="101" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.4.5.2
 </section>
@@ -13615,7 +13722,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="139" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="139" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.5
 </section>
@@ -13633,7 +13740,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="140" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="140" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.5
 </section>
@@ -13672,7 +13779,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="102" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="102" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.5.1
 </section>
@@ -13713,7 +13820,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="103" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="103" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.5.1
 </section>
@@ -13734,7 +13841,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="CH" num="31" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="CH" num="31" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="rejected" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.5.1 and 30.5.2
 </section>
@@ -13754,9 +13861,12 @@
 </suggestion>
 <notes></notes>
 <rationale>
+This is correct as written. There are three conditions:
+"when signalled", "if", "spuriously". The first has two
+parts, separated by "or".
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="104" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="104" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.5.1
 </section>
@@ -13777,7 +13887,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="192" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="192" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.5.1
 </section>
@@ -13833,7 +13943,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="62" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="62" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.5.1
 </section>
@@ -13875,7 +13985,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="105" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="105" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.5.2
 </section>
@@ -13896,7 +14006,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="106" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="106" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.5.2
 </section>
@@ -13917,7 +14027,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="CH" num="33" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="CH" num="33" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.5.2
 </section>
@@ -13937,7 +14047,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="96" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="96" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.5.3
 </section>
@@ -14004,7 +14114,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="CH" num="34" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="CH" num="34" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.6.1
 </section>
@@ -14153,7 +14263,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="200" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="200" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.6.6
 </section>
@@ -14339,7 +14449,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="107" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="107" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.6.9
 </section>
@@ -14358,7 +14468,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="108" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="108" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 30.6.9
 </section>
@@ -14381,7 +14491,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="US" num="206" type="ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="US" num="206" type="ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 [futures.task.members] 30.6.10.1
 </section>
@@ -14442,7 +14552,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="GB" num="141" type="Ed" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="GB" num="141" type="Ed" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 Appendix A [gram] paragraph 1
 </section>
@@ -14460,7 +14570,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="63" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="63" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 A.1
 </section>
@@ -14486,7 +14596,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="FI" num="6" type="te" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="FI" num="6" type="te" owner="CWG" issue="1012" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 D.2 [depr.static]
 </section>
@@ -14527,7 +14637,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="109" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="109" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 Annex B
 </section>
@@ -14545,7 +14655,7 @@
 <rationale>
 </rationale>
 </comment>
-<comment nb="JP" num="110" type="E" owner="" issue="" disp="" date="" extdoc="">
+<comment nb="JP" num="110" type="E" owner="editor" issue="" disp="accepted" date="" extdoc="">
 <section>
 Index
 </section>


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