Hi all,

the doodle poll is now up. Please take a moment to fill it in with your
availability.

Thank you,
Nina

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 at 16:41, Timur Doumler <cpp_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hi Nina,
>
> Thank you very much for stepping in, it's much appreciated! I agree it
> would be great to discuss this is a meeting (as I kept saying on this
> thread). I hope we can find a time that works for everyone.
>
> Cheers,
> Timur
>
> On 11 Oct 2023, at 17:53, Nina Dinka Ranns via Liaison <
> liaison_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Liaison mailing list
> Liaison_at_[hidden]
> Subscription: https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/liaison
> Link to this post: http://lists.isocpp.org/liaison/2023/10/1305.php
>
>
>