Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2026 12:22:36 -0500
On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 11:41 AM Michael Wong via SG14 <
sg14_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> The February minutes haven't been published yet — I'll get those out
> shortly.
>
> The networking constraints in Section 2 reflect discussions that go back
> quite a while in SG14 — this has been a recurring theme from our finance
> and embedded constituencies for years. That said, R0 stated the position
> too specifically and drew some justified criticism for naming specific
> proposals rather than articulating requirements. I have R1 ready, which
> rewrites Section 2 to frame SG14's architectural constraints (zero
> allocation on the hot path, transparent cost model, coroutine-optional,
> framework independence) without recommending for or against any specific
> proposal. R1 also corrects an error in Section 4.2 regarding the status of
> P1112 and P1847.
>
> Please feel free to circulate R1.
>
P4029R1 favorably mentions P3707 "is_always_exhaustive". I think that's
misguided, especially given the recent/ongoing LEWG discussion (see
https://lists.isocpp.org/lib-ext/2026/02/31231.php ). That paper isn't at
all clear what problem it's trying to solve, and of the candidate problems
given in the paper it does *not* solve them. P3707 certainly has nothing at
all to do with "switch statements" — P4029R1 gives me the impression that
its author didn't read any more than the title of P3707.
P4029R1 also mentions P0059 "ring_span" as if that paper is still active.
It is not. See
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/76856176/why-is-the-circular-buffer-not-standardized-in-c/
.
The "agenda" emails you send out for the monthly meetings also have items
that haven't been updated in two years. E.g. my two-year-old announcement
that "LEWG will be seeing my P3055 "Relax wording to permit relocation
optimizations in the STL" in a telecon on February 20th"; e.g. "P2327
de-deprecating volatile received a "consensus" straw poll"; etc. etc.
Strongly recommend just deleting that old cruft. If there's no news
(known), just say "No news" (or say nothing). That's an easy improvement
you can make today.
A stretch goal could be to put the actual agenda for the upcoming meeting
in the email.
–Arthur
sg14_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> The February minutes haven't been published yet — I'll get those out
> shortly.
>
> The networking constraints in Section 2 reflect discussions that go back
> quite a while in SG14 — this has been a recurring theme from our finance
> and embedded constituencies for years. That said, R0 stated the position
> too specifically and drew some justified criticism for naming specific
> proposals rather than articulating requirements. I have R1 ready, which
> rewrites Section 2 to frame SG14's architectural constraints (zero
> allocation on the hot path, transparent cost model, coroutine-optional,
> framework independence) without recommending for or against any specific
> proposal. R1 also corrects an error in Section 4.2 regarding the status of
> P1112 and P1847.
>
> Please feel free to circulate R1.
>
P4029R1 favorably mentions P3707 "is_always_exhaustive". I think that's
misguided, especially given the recent/ongoing LEWG discussion (see
https://lists.isocpp.org/lib-ext/2026/02/31231.php ). That paper isn't at
all clear what problem it's trying to solve, and of the candidate problems
given in the paper it does *not* solve them. P3707 certainly has nothing at
all to do with "switch statements" — P4029R1 gives me the impression that
its author didn't read any more than the title of P3707.
P4029R1 also mentions P0059 "ring_span" as if that paper is still active.
It is not. See
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/76856176/why-is-the-circular-buffer-not-standardized-in-c/
.
The "agenda" emails you send out for the monthly meetings also have items
that haven't been updated in two years. E.g. my two-year-old announcement
that "LEWG will be seeing my P3055 "Relax wording to permit relocation
optimizations in the STL" in a telecon on February 20th"; e.g. "P2327
de-deprecating volatile received a "consensus" straw poll"; etc. etc.
Strongly recommend just deleting that old cruft. If there's no news
(known), just say "No news" (or say nothing). That's an easy improvement
you can make today.
A stretch goal could be to put the actual agenda for the upcoming meeting
in the email.
–Arthur
Received on 2026-02-26 17:22:52