C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: Meeting in Varna?

From: Jens Maurer <jens.maurer_at_[hidden]>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 09:02:05 +0200
On 23/05/2023 07.04, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell wrote:
> Ha, good point. Thanks for noticing! At least I got the JSON Scheme
> right though. :-)

I haven't looked at the JSON Schema yet.

>> 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).

It's doing something involving "==" (double-equal) in the prose text,
which has no meaning, or possibly not the meaning you want.
(Note, for example, that "015" is an octal number in C and C++, so I don't
know whether you intend version numbers with leading 0 to be interpreted
as octal.)

As I said, lots of open issues, and I'm just touching the tip of
the iceberg after 30 seconds of looking.

>>> 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."

You are mentioning EWG and LEWG explicitly, and it seems inconsistent
in the level of description not to mention CWG and/or LWG at all.

> 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.

Then maybe say so explicitly.

>> 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..
> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2023/p2656r2.html#_2024_2_proposal

Ok. Assuming that a lot more contents lands before then, this timeline
feels ambitious for such a large volume of text. I'm doubtful CWG
can whip the wording in shape in two meetings, of which I think I'm not
prepared to spend more than two full days each on the Ecosystem IS,
given likely competition by important C++ matters such as reflection or
pattern matching.


Received on 2023-05-23 07:02:12