P2013 Freestanding Language: Optional ::operator new

[wg21bot]

P2013R0 Freestanding Language: Optional ::operator new (Ben Craig)

[erichkeane]

EWG-I in Prague

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

SF	F	N	A	SA
7	6	1	0	0

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

SF	F	N	A	SA
0	5	5	2	0

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

SF	F	N	A	SA
5	8	0	0	0

[jfbastien]

EWG Prague Friday afternoon:

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

SF	F	N	A	SA
8	10	7	0	0

[wg21bot]

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

[jfbastien]

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.

SF	F	N	A	SA
2	16	1	0	0

[wg21bot]

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

[wg21bot]

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

[jensmaurer]

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

[JeffGarland]

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

[jwakely]

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

F	N	A
7	0	0

[jwakely]

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.

[JeffGarland]

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.

[wg21bot]

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