EWG-I in Prague

Given the time constraints of the committee, should we spend additional committee effort on P2013?

Is a Feature test macro a valuable addition to this paper?

Do we believe that P2013 is sufficently developed to be seen by EWG?

EWG Prague Friday afternoon:

We’re interested in freestanding having an optional operator new, please come back with wording.

P2013R1 Freestanding Language: Optional ::operator new (Ben Craig)

This was discussed in an EWG telecon today.

POLL: After updating wording for "either/or", mandates, and talking to SG10 about the feature test macro, P2013 is tentatively ready to be forwarded to CWG.
Walter volunteers to check that this is done.

P2013R2 Freestanding Language: Optional ::operator new (Ben Craig)

P2013R3 Freestanding Language: Optional ::operator new (Ben Craig)

The state of the paper after CWG review is that it touches only LWG wording. Forwarding ownership to LWG.

Author isn't available to support updates and reviews for c++23 timeline -- re-targeting to c++26.

LWG reviewed P2013R4 today and approved a modified version, P2013R5, for C++26

This is tentatively-ready-for-plenary but I won't add the label, as it can't go to plenary until we actually have a C++26 WP to add it to.

This is tentatively-ready-for-plenary but I won't add the label, as it can't go to plenary until we actually have a C++26 WP to add it to.

I've added an lwg-future-plenary for items in this state.

P2013R5 Freestanding Language: Optional ::operator new (Ben Craig)