ISOCPP liaison List: by author

To subscribe or unsubscribe to this list (or change your subscription options), see the list information page.

Aaron Ballman

Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] SG22 discussion on two proposed syntax options for WG21 Contracts (2023-10-16 14:02:39)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-07 12:52:17)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 18:14:18)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 17:57:12)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 16:11:15)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 13:53:35)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-05 16:51:31)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-05 16:25:09)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-05 15:09:37)

Corentin

Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] SG22 discussion on two proposed syntax options for WG21 Contracts (2023-10-27 16:06:16)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] SG22 discussion on two proposed syntax options for WG21 Contracts (2023-10-27 16:02:41)

Cranmer, Joshua

Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] SG22 meeting - 27th of October, 12:00 EDT/18:00 UTC+2 (2023-10-27 20:08:08)

JeanHeyd Meneide

Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] nullptr + 0 (2023-10-26 12:59:54)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-05 16:48:09)

Jens Gustedt

Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] SG22 meeting - 27th of October, 12:00 EDT/18:00 UTC+2 (2023-10-27 19:52:45)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 09:24:55)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 08:54:01)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 08:29:59)

Jens Maurer

Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] nullptr + 0 (2023-10-26 12:41:18)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 16:35:50)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 16:28:49)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 16:24:06)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 15:15:23)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 14:44:03)

Jonathan Wakely

Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] nullptr + 0 (2023-10-26 13:32:58)

Joseph Myers

Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] WG14 feelings about F-strings for C (2023-10-25 20:26:06)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-09 23:09:44)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-09 23:02:48)

Jₑₙₛ Gustedt

Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] WG14 feelings about F-strings for C (2023-10-26 09:55:39)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 12:48:51)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 12:35:30)

Martin Uecker

Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] SG22 meeting - 27th of October, 12:00 EDT/18:00 UTC+2 (2023-10-27 20:45:04)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] SG22 meeting - 27th of October, 12:00 EDT/18:00 UTC+2 (2023-10-27 20:03:11)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] WG14 feelings about F-strings for C (2023-10-25 20:52:16)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-08 13:41:16)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-08 06:17:39)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-07 13:34:39)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-07 13:25:45)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-07 12:53:37)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-07 10:46:17)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 18:40:23)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 18:00:23)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 17:56:03)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 17:06:09)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 15:04:03)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 14:53:58)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 14:30:17)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 05:31:47)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-05 18:15:17)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-05 17:50:24)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-05 16:45:41)

Niall Douglas

Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] WG14 feelings about F-strings for C (2023-10-26 11:56:23)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] WG14 feelings about F-strings for C (2023-10-26 11:50:25)
[wg14/wg21 liaison] WG14 feelings about F-strings for C (2023-10-25 19:34:56)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 07:59:47)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-05 16:04:07)

Nina Dinka Ranns

Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] SG22 meeting - 27th of October, 12:00 EDT/18:00 UTC+2 (2023-10-27 18:50:29)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] SG22 meeting - 27th of October, 12:00 EDT/18:00 UTC+2 (2023-10-25 14:43:59)
[wg14/wg21 liaison] SG22 meeting - 27th of October, 12:00 EDT/18:00 UTC+2 - part 2 (2023-10-18 17:00:37)
[wg14/wg21 liaison] SG22 meeting - 27th of October, 12:00 EDT/18:00 UTC+2 (2023-10-18 16:53:45)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] SG22 discussion on two proposed syntax options for WG21 Contracts (2023-10-17 14:52:21)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] SG22 discussion on two proposed syntax options for WG21 Contracts (2023-10-16 10:30:43)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-11 16:19:24)
[wg14/wg21 liaison] SG22 discussion on two proposed syntax options for WG21 Contracts (2023-10-11 16:17:03)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-11 16:09:41)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-11 14:53:30)

Robert Seacord

[wg14/wg21 liaison] nullptr + 0 (2023-10-26 12:29:43)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 14:45:49)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 14:28:52)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-05 12:26:57)

Thomas Köppe

Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] nullptr + 0 (2023-10-26 13:06:33)

Timur Doumler

Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] SG22 discussion on two proposed syntax options for WG21 Contracts (2023-10-27 16:00:04)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-11 15:41:39)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-08 16:22:47)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-08 16:06:18)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-08 11:02:08)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-07 15:35:25)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-07 14:31:45)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-07 14:21:32)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-07 13:46:05)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-07 13:25:59)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-07 09:24:16)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 17:14:06)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 16:56:39)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 16:32:12)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 16:27:16)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 16:23:04)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 15:44:26)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 15:16:10)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 14:45:36)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 14:32:23)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 14:06:34)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 13:58:12)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 13:43:31)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 13:35:28)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 13:22:06)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 13:09:26)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 13:02:26)
[wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-05 11:58:51)

Ville Voutilainen

Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-08 16:25:58)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-08 14:13:44)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-08 13:49:40)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-07 14:37:45)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-07 14:29:34)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-07 14:13:49)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-07 13:38:59)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-07 13:10:16)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-07 11:38:47)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 11:24:07)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 09:07:32)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 08:39:23)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-06 06:40:09)
Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] P2961R1 syntax for Contracts: viable for C? (2023-10-05 23:02:21)

Last message date: 2023-10-27 20:45:04