C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [wg14/wg21 liaison] [isocpp-lib-ext] RFC: C++ needs to support opening files in "exclusive" mode

From: Aaron Ballman <aaron_at_[hidden]>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2021 11:29:52 -0400
On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 11:19 AM Niall Douglas via Lib-Ext
<lib-ext_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 30/09/2021 16:00, Aaron Ballman via Lib-Ext wrote:
> >> Yeah the above is the old wording. I thought Robert Secord from WG14 was
> >> supposed to have fixed it?
> >
> > My liaison senses were tingling. :-D The only paper I'm aware of on
> > the topic is: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2357.htm
> >
> > The meeting minutes on the discussion of that paper are in:
> > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2377.pdf
> >
> > Some interesting snippets from the minutes:
> >
> > *Straw poll: Do we want to incorporate N2357’s second proposed change
> > into C2X? 11/1/11 (In favor, Opposed, Abstain)
> > *Straw poll: Do we want any changes to p5 regarding the
> > “exclusive” in exclusive file access? 11/1/12 (In favor, Opposed,
> > Abstain)
> >
> > Niall: I can propose alternative wording. I intend to write exactly
> > what POSIX does
> >
> > So neither poll gained consensus, and I think we're waiting on Niall
> > to produce the follow-up paper.
> So I *did* produce alternative wording (I judged it at the time it was
> too small for a whole paper), which you've already seen copy and pasted
> just there, complete with paragraph numbers. I did that back in 2019,
> and I sent it in. Robert Secord then followed up with me about it in a
> private email chain thereafter, and as far as I was aware until now, not
> my exact proposed wording was chosen, but something close enough was.
> So *somebody* on WG14 noticed me sending it in and responded, I guess
> somehow between then and now something got dropped. It's a very small
> change in the wider scheme of things, so it's easy to happen. In
> fairness, had I actually put this into a N-paper, it probably wouldn't
> have got dropped. C'est la vie.

Oh, thanks for the further information!

> Can we act on this now or is it too late?

There's still time -- we have seen this proposal before, so it's not
in the bucket of "new things" that have to be in the next mailing, so
there's a bit more wiggle room. However, that time is quickly running
out, so sooner rather than later will increase the chances of success.
The next mailing deadline is Oct 15 (for the meetings the week of Nov

> I have a feeling you now will
> want a paper? A copy and paste of the email I just quoted is probably
> sufficient, it has all relevant information needed for WG14 to make a
> decision I think?

Yes, WG14 will need a paper. It doesn't have to be super involved, but
I'd recommend having enough information in the front matter so that
people can reason about why the changes are necessary. If you need
help with the process around submitting a paper, I'm happy to help
(feel free to email me off-list).


> In the end, as the meeting minutes show, my new proposed normative text
> just replicates the POSIX standard. I think that a safe choice for WG14,
> and WG21, to follow.
> Niall
> _______________________________________________
> Lib-Ext mailing list
> Lib-Ext_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/lib-ext
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/lib-ext/2021/09/20554.php

Received on 2021-09-30 10:30:18