Subject: Re: Proposed normative wording for P1030 path_view draft 1
From: Tom Honermann (tom_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-10-14 00:33:44
Thank you, Nial.Â I'll ask for a volunteer at the SG16 telecon scheduled
for this week (in under 24 hours) to perform a review.Â Unless that
review raises new SG16 specific concerns, I'm not inclined to spend
further SG16 telecon time on this paper as I think LEWG is well
positioned to take it from here.Â LEWG and/or LWG can always request
specific input from SG16 if their respective chairs feel doing so is
On 10/1/20 7:10 AM, Niall Douglas via SG16 wrote:
> Dear SG16 and Billy,
> Please find attached draft 1 of the proposed normative wording for P1030
> path_view targeting the C++ 23 IS.
> There are likely code correctness mistakes in the current proposed
> wording, as it has diverged quite a bit from the reference
> implementation. Over the next few weeks I intend to port the reference
> implementation to this IS spec.
> Nevertheless, I would appreciate SG16 sign off on this draft 1 wording
> before it heads to LEWG for review, and any comment from LEWG or LWG or
> standard library implementers are of course always welcome.
SG16 list run by email@example.com