Thanks for the note. I will update and use this chance to clean up the
agenda.

On Thu, Feb 26, 2026 at 12:22 PM Arthur O'Dwyer <arthur.j.odwyer_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> 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
>