Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 08:34:25 -0500
On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 2:02 AM Jens Maurer <jens.maurer_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 23/05/2023 07.04, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell wrote:
> As I said, lots of open issues, and I'm just touching the tip of
> the iceberg after 30 seconds of looking.
Thank you for taking the time, even if small, to look at it now. I
know there's a lot going on in the next two weeks. So it's greatly
appreciated.
> > 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.
Okay.
> >> 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.
Yes, it's ambitious. Not sure if there's an alternative. As the
increased workload will be an issue at any time during the bootstrap
process. One option is to adjust the scope to accommodate capacity. I
also expect that we'll get better at wording in this context from
wording experts on the early papers. Which is why I particularly
appreciate your feedback at this time. We will take the lessons as we
learn how to do wording for this IS and apply to the later papers.
Since I expect other additions to look rather similar to this first
one, I think it's possible that the work for CWG will not be
impossible.
> On 23/05/2023 07.04, René Ferdinand Rivera Morell wrote:
> As I said, lots of open issues, and I'm just touching the tip of
> the iceberg after 30 seconds of looking.
Thank you for taking the time, even if small, to look at it now. I
know there's a lot going on in the next two weeks. So it's greatly
appreciated.
> > 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.
Okay.
> >> 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.
Yes, it's ambitious. Not sure if there's an alternative. As the
increased workload will be an issue at any time during the bootstrap
process. One option is to adjust the scope to accommodate capacity. I
also expect that we'll get better at wording in this context from
wording experts on the early papers. Which is why I particularly
appreciate your feedback at this time. We will take the lessons as we
learn how to do wording for this IS and apply to the later papers.
Since I expect other additions to look rather similar to this first
one, I think it's possible that the work for CWG will not be
impossible.
-- -- René Ferdinand Rivera Morell -- Don't Assume Anything -- No Supone Nada -- Robot Dreams - http://robot-dreams.net
Received on 2023-05-23 13:34:40