I'd like to see more examples, but yes, that 1 example is much better than the previous zero!
Please add this small diff to your proposed wording (as I said in an earlier email in this thread):
A simple An assignment whose left operand is of a volatile-qualified type is deprecated ([depr.volatile.type]) unless the (possibly parenthesized) assignment is a discarded-value expression or an unevaluated operand.
Or, if you don't want to do this, please explain your reasoning in (a new section of) the paper.
–Arthur
So I've tried to incorporate the feedback given.
I know I can have a tendency to ramble a bit in text so if the
proposal is still not clear enough, please let me know.
I've added a single example of usage in a library "from the wild", if
further examples are required, I would like to know were they might
fit.
I haven't added the "what do we expect from atomicity of compound
expressions" section, as I frankly do no know what to expect other
than it not breaking the hal that is often times _more_ important than
the standard library.
I'm still looking for any feedback this group may have.
Best
Paul
Den man. 15. feb. 2021 kl. 02.07 skrev Paul M. Bendixen
<paulbendixen@gmail.com>:
>
> Thank you very much for the feedback, as this is the first time I've
> tried this, I welcome any help.
>
> Michael, yes I'll need a number, but 2021 02 15 seems very optimistic.
>
> I have already put Wouter on and would like to have any input he could
> provide. I am updating the proposal but haven't updated enough to put
> it out again (I have added examples though and noted places where the
> prose needs to be improved.
>
> /Paul
>
> Den fre. 12. feb. 2021 kl. 18.50 skrev Arthur O'Dwyer via SG14
> <sg14@lists.isocpp.org>:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 12:44 PM Jens Maurer <Jens.Maurer@gmx.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 12/02/2021 17.36, Arthur O'Dwyer via SG14 wrote:
> >> > Again, the null hypothesis is that this never happens, and we'd have to see some concrete examples from real codebases in order to provide evidence against the null hypothesis.
> >>
> >> The argument was that there are plenty of C header files from
> >> embedded system vendors that do this, and we want C++ to be
> >> compatible in this regard.
> >>
> >> I hope we can quote from such header files without much effort.
> >
> >
> > Right, but the null hypothesis is that this never happens, and we'd have to [quote from such header files] in order to provide evidence against the null hypothesis.
> > If that's easy, then awesome: let's see it in the paper.
> >
> > –Arthur
> > _______________________________________________
> > SG14 mailing list
> > SG14@lists.isocpp.org
> > https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg14
>
>
>
> --
> • − − •/• −/• • −/• − • •/− • • •/•/− •/− • •/• •/− • • −/•/− •/• − −
> •− •/− − •/− −/• −/• •/• − • •/• − • − • −/− • − •/− − −/− −//
--
• − − •/• −/• • −/• − • •/− • • •/•/− •/− • •/• •/− • • −/•/− •/• − −
•− •/− − •/− −/• −/• •/• − • •/• − • − • −/− • − •/− − −/− −//
_______________________________________________
SG14 mailing list
SG14@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg14