Hi all,

apologies for the late reply. I have been travelling and am only catching
up with this discussion now.

It is true that SG22 has not been meeting, but that's a reflection of the
fact we had a flux in the organisation of SG22 and no urgent matters to
attend to.
However, this matter is of some urgency as SG21 (contracts study group)
plans to make a decision on the syntax in Kona.

As good as reflector discussions are, they are not a replacement for a
meeting in which we can properly debate the issue and poll to get a more
realistic feel for what the group thinks. I would also want to have both
syntax authors present so there is no unintentional bias in presenting the
two options.

Once we have an idea what availability authors have in October, I will send
out a google poll with possible times in hope of getting a quorum.

Even if you have already stated your opinion on this topic, your
participation would be greatly appreciated so we can minute your position
and so your vote counts in the polls we take.

Thank you,
Nina

On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 at 00:09, Joseph Myers via Liaison <
liaison_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Fri, 6 Oct 2023, Jens Maurer via Liaison wrote:
>
> > In the following example:
> >
> > [[nodiscard('a')]] bool f();
> >
> > Is a conforming implementation of C required to diagnose the
> > bad argument for the "nodiscard" attribute?
> >
> > My understanding is that the "... is ignored" in the quoted section
> > C23 6.7.12p2 means "a conforming implementation is not required to
> > diagnose the above translation unit".
>
> This is where WG14 rejected C23 CD1 comments CA-084 and US-085 (which
> proposed to require diagnosis in such cases).
>
> --
> Joseph S. Myers
> joseph_at_[hidden]
> _______________________________________________
> Liaison mailing list
> Liaison_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/liaison
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/liaison/2023/10/1304.php
>