On 06/06/2022 17:51, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2022, Niall Douglas via Liaison wrote:
>
>>> As a separate issue, I think that illustrates that the list of possible
>>> mode strings is already too long and we need to restructure it to
 describe
>>> the possible elements / ordering of those elements in such a string,
>>> rather than increasing it to list now 25 possible combinations
>>> individually.
>>
>> Is that not risky given how close to IS release we now are?
>>
>> What ISO C ought to do is what POSIX is doing, which I attach below, and
>> thanks to Nick Stoughton for supplying the current change delta for
 POSIX.
>>
>> Surely it is a bit radical at this late stage?
>
> I think it's inventing 'p' that's a bit radical at this late stage, and we
> should simply fix the specification of 'x' to reflect what was intended,
> without adding 'p' (and then consider further changes for the next release
> after C23).

Do bear in mind that 'p' came about because of WG14 committee member
feedback wanting to retain the about to be excised second half of 'x'.

I think the way this will appear in the next meeting is a yay-nay vote
on the proposed changes to each of 'x', 'a', and 'p'. So they can each
stand on their own merits. I'll split out the wording changes into
sections in the paper accordingly.

Are you happy with the proposed changes to 'a', which is to add the
requirement of atomicity? All major implementations comply with the new
wording, except for Microsoft's and they said they're happy to retcon
their implementation.

Niall