On 4/4/20 6:45 AM, Alisdair Meredith via SG16 wrote:
> I have concerns at deprecating regex with no plans to remove, for a very specific reason.
>
> We are currently binding the C++ Standard to a very old ECMA Script Language Specification
> that, AFIACT, was replaced by 5th edition in 2009 making our binding 14 years out of date by
> the time we publish C++23. ECMA has continued to revise their standard, but ISO seems to
> have fixed on that 5th Edition with ISO/IEC 16262:2011.
>
> If we deprecate and neither remove nor revise our spec, this ancient binding is forever. As
> the only reason we maintain that binding is for the regex grammar - that we modify anyway,
> could we perhaps document that grammar entirely within our own standard, with a note to
> meniton the ECMA Script Language Specification as the initial source of inspiration (hence
> the name of the enumerator for that grammar)?
>
> Note that I am not the regex expert to do that work, so not volunteering! But it is the kind
> of concern I would like to see addressed before parking regex for an eternity in Annex D.

My initial reaction to this is, gosh, that sounds like a lot of work :)

This seems to me to be an orthogonal concern with regard to deprecation;
the reference to the ancient ECMA specification is present whether
std::regex is deprecated or not. Deprecating it doesn't incline me
towards wanting to improve the quality of its specification.

Tom.

>
> AlisdairM