Hans Klabbers:

     The work you are doing seems very interesting. However, I am not sure
that I have the expertise to help you build up a proper build description
for C++ (and/or C). Still, SG15 sounds like the perfect place to think
about that and what it means to have a proper descirption of a C++ build.

Titus:

     Thank you! I'll be presenting the work at Rapperswil and hopefully
figuring out the exact right semantics that the committee wants so I can
make a proper R1 with wording, ready by the time Pre-San Diego Mailing
comes around. It's my first paper and Rapperswil will be my first meeting,
but I think I'll definitely be able to make forward progress and get this
into the standard.

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 1:21 PM, hans_at_[hidden] <hans_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Hi JeanHeyd,
>
> Thank you for sharing this proposal. The proposal really fills a void.
>
> As you already mentioned in the proposal we should strive towards a
> unified world instead of a fragmented one. Therefore this proposal should
> be accompanied by a proposal for WG15 for unified compile/build
> description. I’ve been thinking about dependency management lately (see
> http://www.klabbers.nl/c/dependency-management-for-c/). Part of my
> current thinking is also define unified compile/build flags.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Hans Klabbers.
>
> On May 12, 2018, at 1:47 AM, ThePhD <phdofthehouse_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Dear SG15,
>
> Titus Winters at C++Now invited people to join the SG15 mailing list
> (which I didn't actually know existed!) and share their ideas. I wrote a
> paper about getting resource data from files into C++ in a cross-platform,
> compile-time way, under the name "std::embed" --
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2018/p1040r0.html.
>
> I expect the paper to be changed quite a bit as I go to my first C++
> Meeting in Rapperswil, but before I do I would like to submit the paper
> here. It seems like something that would be of benefit to this Study Group,
> as it can replace many build steps currently used today to handle the same
> sort of issue.
>
> If anyone could give me feedback about the paper, what it might meant
> to them, or if it even is something that truly concerns Tooling, I would
> greatly appreciate it!
> _______________________________________________
> Tooling mailing list
> Tooling_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/tooling
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tooling mailing list
> Tooling_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/tooling
>
>