Editor’s Report

N2798=08-0308, Working Draft, Standard for Programming Language C++, contains the working draft for the standard, with the changes made at the San Francisco meeting:

• Core issues
• 222, 594, 634, 637, 639, 647, 648, 649, 651, 659, 660, 671, 677, 679, 686
• Core papers
• N2757, Expedited core issues handling (revision 2): 220, 592, 606, 614, 624, 681, 683, 688
• N2756, Non-static data member initializers
• N2764, Forward declaration of enumerations (revision 3)
• N2762, Not so trivial issues with trivial
• N2752, Proposed text for bidirectional fences
• N2765, User-defined literals (aka Extensible literals) (revision 5)
• N2761, Towards support of attributes in C++ (revision 6)
• N2782, C++ data-dependency ordering: function annotation
• N2773, Proposed wording for concepts (revision 9)
• N2780, Named requirements for C++0x concepts, version 2
• N2778, Wording for range-based for-loop (revision 3)
• Library issues
• 180, 387, 396, 522, 629, 691, 713, 714, 720, 728, 762, 769, 771, 772, 776, 779, 787, 805, 806, 807, 808, 809, 813, 824, 829, 842, 844, 848, 850, 852
• 3, 675, 692, 698, 709, 734, 804, 820, 823, 843, 856
• LWG issue 698 seems to have anticipated adoption of LWG 832, which hasn’t happened. For consistency, I put in the new signatures with const error_category& arguments instead of pointers.
• LWG issue 728 says that the proposed resolution is in N2424, but goes on to discuss a typo in N2424 and an unspecified additional change. The comment about the typo seems to be correct, so I made that change. I have no idea what the change "proposed by Charles Karney" is, so I didn’t do it.
• LWG issue 734 says that the proposed resolution is in N2424, but the rest of the text of issue 734 seems to be the actual resolution.
• LWG issue 762, part 11 lists 5 different paragraphs, only one of which has code that looks somewhat like the line of code in the changes. I don’t know what this refers to, so haven’t done anything with it.
• LWG 807: I rearranged the sections a bit, so the paragraph added by this issue appears (slightly modified) in [tuple.cnstr] and [tuple.assign].
• Library papers
• N2771, LWG issues: 858, 882
• N2783, Collected issues with atomics: 818, 845, 846,
• N2637, Revisiting std::shared_ptr comparison
• N2755, Concepts for the C++0x standard library: chapter 17
• N2774, Foundational concepts (revision 5)
• N2777, Concepts for the C++0x standard library: iterators (revision 4)
• N2758, Iterator concepts for the C++0x standard library (revision 6)
• N2759, Concepts for the C++0x standard library: algorithms (revision 6)
• N2768, Allocator concepts, part 1 (revision 2)
• N2770, Concepts for the C++0x standard library: utilities (revision 6)
• N2620, Concepts for the C++0x standard library: diagnostics library
• N2776, Concepts for the C++0x standard library: containers (revision 4)
• N2736, Concepts for the C++0x standard library: numerics (revision 4), section 26.6 only
• N2779, Concepts for clause 18 (part 2)
• N2668, Concurrency modifications to basic string
• N2784, Strong compare and exchange
• N2760, Input/output library thread safety
• N2769, Detailed reporting for input/output library errors (revision 2)
• N2772, Variadic functions: variadic templates or initializer lists? (revision 1)
• N2775, Small library thread-safety revisions
• N2671, An asynchronous future value (error category name changed from "FUTURE" to "future")
• N2709, Packaging tasks for asynchronous execution
• N2786, Simplifying unique_copy (revision 1)
• N2530, Making it easier to use std::type_info as an index

My thanks to the following people, who pointed out typographical, linguistic, logical, and syntactic errors throughout various versions of the working drafts:

• Alberto Ganesh Barbati
• Alisdair Meredith
• Beman Dawes
• Daniel Krügler
• Doug Gregor
• Hans Boehm
• Hervé Brönnimann
• Howard Hinnant
• James Widman
• Jens Maurer
• Lawrence Crowl
• Mark Fischler
• Michael Wong
• Mike Miller
• Pablo Halpern
• Peter Dimov
• Steve Adamczyk
• Walter E Brown

My apologies to anyone whose name didn’t get on this list. Any omissions are entirely accidental.