C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: [Tooling] Scoping limits of tooling in wg21?

From: Titus Winters <titus_at_[hidden]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2018 14:08:01 +0200
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 4:29 PM Ben Craig <ben.craig_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> I’ve heard some off-list questions about what wg21 can and cannot do,
> particularly when it comes to things regarding package management. I’m
> hoping to get some clarifications here.
> *Does wg21 (and SG15) have the authority to produce a specification for a
> package / dependency manager?*

Specification? Perhaps.

> *What if the package manager isn’t just a C++ package / dependency
> manager, but a general purpose package / dependency manager?*

Again, if it's specification.

Practically speaking, I expect SG15 to be primarily a clearinghouse for
discussion between the community and the committee on questions of tooling
and ecosystem - the output from SG15 may primarily be standing documents,
position papers, etc, and very little of the normal WG21 output

> (BIG NOTE: I am not asking if wg21 and sg15 have the time or the
> willingness. I’m just asking if it is allowable. I don’t expect the time
> or willingness questions to be answerable on the mailing lists.)
> Here’s a relevant note from the ISO Code of Conduct (
> https://www.iso.org/files/live/sites/isoorg/files/publications/en/pub100397.pdf
> )
> “Agree to a clear purpose and scope: We are committed to having a clear
> purpose, scope, objectives and plan to ensure the timely development of
> International Standards.”
> Do we need to agree somewhere as to what the scope of wg21 is, or has that
> scope been agreed upon and set in a standing document somewhere?
> _______________________________________________
> Tooling mailing list
> Tooling_at_[hidden]
> http://www.open-std.org/mailman/listinfo/tooling

Received on 2018-06-07 14:08:15