C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: Meeting in Varna?

From: René Ferdinand Rivera Morell <grafikrobot_at_[hidden]>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 00:04:47 -0500
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:20 PM Jens Maurer <jens.maurer_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 22/05/2023 14.19, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell wrote:
> > and a PR for the draft with the contents of the introspection item
> > (see https://github.com/cplusplus/ecosystem-is/pull/2 -- and
> > attached).
> Well, that needs very serious work. For instance, it seems
> [1.0
> is a valid /version-range/ per the current wording.

Ha, good point. Thanks for noticing! At least I got the JSON Scheme
right though. :-)

> Is 01.00002 supposed to be a valid version number?
> (Note leading zeros.)

Yes, that's allowed. As it specifies doing numerical comparisons (i.e. 01 == 1).

> Also, all mentions of grammar non-terminals seem to use regular italics
> in the text, not the \grammarterm slanted font.
> Also, I recommend to use Unicode character designations for non-alphanumeric
> characters that want to be highlighted, avoiding ambiguities with surrounding
> meta-markup:
> "separated by a period (.)" -> "separated by U+002E FULL STOP".

Makes sense, thanks.

I just updated the PR with all of those, hopefully.

> > And there's been some discussion on the possibility of
> > moving the contents of the Modules TR into this. We could add
> > placeholders for the goal items in the draft if that's what's needed.
> That would be a good idea; the Working Draft is what's distributed
> alongside the New Work Item Proposal. On the other hand, promising
> more than you can deliver isn't good, either.

It's not a promise. It's a goal. We can always remove items. Or
decrease the scope of items. The real promise is that we'll have
something out, be it small or not.

> > Like C++ we are operating with the train model. I.e. something will
> > get published, the contents will vary on effort.
> Hm... It would be good if the description of the "Boostrap" process
> in https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2023/p2656r2.html#_bootstrap
> would clearly point out that LWG and CWG are involved; after all
> EWG and LEWG are also explicitly mentioned.

I can do that. Although I thought that this was clear as to the progress:

"Initial development and review in Tooling Study Group (SG15),
followed by review and approvals in Evolution Working Group (EWG) or
Library Evolution Working Group (LEWG). And from there continuing to
the regular review and approval of wording process."

> It is unclear to me whether CWG (and even more so LWG) would be the
> right group to review wording for the Ecosystem IS. On the other hand,
> I'm not seeing WG21 passing a straw poll without one of those groups
> having reviewed the material.

It's fairly clear to me that it would be CWG. They are at least more
likely to have the tool implementors that this IS most affects. But
maybe I'm wrong on that estimation.

> At what point do you anticipate that wording review for CWG and/or LWG
> will be on the agenda? Please add that explicitly to the "Timeline";
> this review might generate substantial load for CWG.

The target would be after June 2024..
-- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell
-- Don't Assume Anything  -- No Supone Nada
-- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net

Received on 2023-05-23 05:05:02