Sorry, I won't be able to make it tonight

           Clive

On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 1:09 PM Aaron Ballman via Liaison <
liaison_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Reminder: this meeting will be happening TODAY (not our usual Friday)
> in about five hours from now. Hope to see you there (and remember, the
> meeting password changed, see below for details)!
>
> ~Aaron
>
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 1:10 PM Aaron Ballman
> <compatibility.sg.chair_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > Our next meeting will be on Thur Dec 9, 2021 at 18:00 UTC
> > (
> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20211209T180000&p1=tz_pt&p2=tz_mt&p3=tz_ct&p4=tz_et&p5=1440&p6=tz_cet
> ).
> >
> > You can join the meeting at https://iso.zoom.us/j/5513145100
> >
> > **NEW PASSWORD: same as the old one, but spelled as a C reserved
> > identifier instead of a C++ keyword; contact Aaron Ballman if you have
> > questions **
> >
> > We will be discussing the following papers:
> >
> > WG14 N2808 (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2808.htm)
> > Allow 16-bit ptrdiff_t again
> > Proposes changing the current minimum size for ptrdiff_t from 17 bits
> > down to 16 bits on both hosted and freestanding implementations. This
> > proposal was provisionally adopted for C23 and the author is
> > especially interested in feedback about blocking implementation or
> > compatibility concerns that WG14 should be aware of before formally
> > adopting the feature.
> >
> > P2460 (https://wg21.link/P2460R0) Relax requirements on wchar_t to
> > match existing practices
> > Proposes to remove the constraint as to which encoding is associated
> > with wchar_t, as is commonly done in existing practice. The author
> > believes this should not have significant impact on cross-language
> > compatibility as it is relaxing a constraint, but is interested in
> > feedback confirming or refuting that belief.
> >
> > P1494R2 (https://wg21.link/p1494r2) Partial program correctness
> > This paper proposes restricting "time-travel optimizations" with
> > "execution epochs" that have independent guarantees about their
> > observable behavior in the absence of undefined behavior. The proposal
> > introduces a new library facility (requiring compiler magic) to
> > specify the boundaries of these epochs. Examples, some of them of use
> > with contracts, are provided. The author is looking for information
> > about interest in the direction in the C community (which shares the
> > execution model) as well as implementation or compatibility concerns.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > ~Aaron
> _______________________________________________
> Liaison mailing list
> Liaison_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/liaison
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/liaison/2021/12/0923.php
>