Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2022 19:50:28 +0200
On Sat, 12 Nov 2022 at 19:40, Timur Doumler <cpp_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> In that paper, that you said you need to write, I think you should propose wording that spells out precisely what it is that you want (I guess, allowing implementations to treat attributes grammatically as skipped-over token soup?), and *not* simply reverts Defect Report issue 2538, because that would take us back to a specification that is ambiguous, and that's not helpful to anyone.
Thank you, Mr. Doumler, but I think I know how to do my job, as
evidenced by my suggestion that opposing this
motion isn't appropriate, hence it will logically follow that I will
not propose reverting it in that paper, either.
> In that paper, that you said you need to write, I think you should propose wording that spells out precisely what it is that you want (I guess, allowing implementations to treat attributes grammatically as skipped-over token soup?), and *not* simply reverts Defect Report issue 2538, because that would take us back to a specification that is ambiguous, and that's not helpful to anyone.
Thank you, Mr. Doumler, but I think I know how to do my job, as
evidenced by my suggestion that opposing this
motion isn't appropriate, hence it will logically follow that I will
not propose reverting it in that paper, either.
Received on 2022-11-12 17:50:41