Apologies.
This time with the doodle poll link included.

https://doodle.com/meeting/participate/id/dLPJwJAd

best,
Nina

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 at 17:09, Nina Dinka Ranns <dinka.ranns_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>