C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [SG10] Updates to SD-6

From: Nelson, Clark <clark.nelson_at_[hidden]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 18:38:14 +0000
> The real (slight) reluctance: There is a tiny risk removing macros that
> have been shipped. OTOH, if no one in their right mind would use them
> then they shouldn't be out in the wild and then I say go ahead.
> It might be nice to have this solidified soonish so I can maybe back out
> before something freezes.

It would have been even nicer if the issue had been settled before the
digit-separator macro was "shipped" in the SD-6 update I published a couple
of weeks ago.

I think that we're really suffering from trying to back-fill feature-testing
in cases where no thought was given to it on the front side. I think we need
to get the EWG and LEWG to think about what makes sense for feature-testing
before a feature is thrown over the wall to CWG/LWG.

(Yes, I know -- in the specific case of digit separators, the political
situation meant there was never any hope that it could be handled entirely
by EWG; I'm talking about the general case.)

Does anyone in SG10 consistently attend EWG or LEWG?

Also, if SG10 were to spend more time composing rationale, and especially
examples, we would find this class of bugs earlier.


Received on 2015-01-12 19:38:30